MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

Double Taxation Relief

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
	I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Canada) Order 2003, and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Mauritius) Order 2003 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House on 18 June 2003.
	I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Common Agricultural Policy

Nick Brown: What assessment she has made of the prospects for reform of the common agricultural policy (a) sugar and (b) rice regimes.

Margaret Beckett: Following the very successful outcome of last month's CAP reform negotiations in Luxembourg, which included agreement on a new rice regime, we are awaiting the promised Commission review of the sugar regime.

Nick Brown: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Mr. Andy Lebrecht and the agricultural specialists in my right hon. Friend's Department deserve our congratulations on their achievements in the latest CAP reform round. Congratulations are also due to Commissioner Fischler and his team of officials, who held out for a fair and rational approach to reform. However, as my right hon. Friend will know, more remains to be done, especially on the sugar and rice regimes. The current sugar regime, which is a protectionist regime that relies on exports and refunds, and passes the cost of the regime on to the consumer, is indefensible. May I urge my right hon. Friend not to give up on the United Kingdom's endeavour to have that iniquitous regime reformed?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I will pass on his remarks to our officials. I share his view that this is a major achievement for Commissioner Fischler, without whose determination the scale of reform would not have been achieved.
	Our capacity to get agreement and to negotiate in the Agriculture Council is much assisted by the respect and affection that my right hon. Friend engendered and the relationships that he built, on which foundation we were able to build. He is right to say that reform of the sugar regime remains an important priority. We anticipate that Commissioner Fischler will come forward with further proposals, perhaps in September. I share my right hon. Friend's view, as, I hope, does the whole House, that that regime is in great need of reform. I would go so far as to say that although it will not be an easy process, and it is one beset by complications and difficulties, the question should be when the sugar regime is reformed, and not if.

Vincent Cable: Does the Secretary of State agree that what is distinctive about the sugar regime is not merely its importance for developing country exporters but that the resistance to reform does not come only from the usual suspects in France but from powerful grower and processor interests in the United Kingdom? What assurances can the right hon. Lady give us that she is willing to take on those domestic vested interests in order to open markets?

Margaret Beckett: Precedent.

Andy Reed: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the progress that has been made in CAP reform. We know full well about the difficulties that arise in such negotiations, but is she aware of the desire that the new sugar regime should be brought in as quickly as possible? For those of us who have an interest in the developing world, every day of delay is a disaster for individual farmers and their families. Can she assure the House that she will pursue the matter as quickly as possible? As I have said, every day that passes is a disaster for individuals throughout the world.

Margaret Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in these issues. He is entirely right that the present regime is very damaging. The present European Union price is about three to four times that at world level. He is also right that the regime itself distorts international trade. As the European Union has reached the everything but arms agreement, the end to this issue is bound to come. It is a matter of how we best and most speedily manage the transition. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are strong advocates of reform in that cause.

Waste Management (Essex)

Bob Russell: If she will make representations to Essex county council to encourage it to exclude incineration as an option in the county waste management plan.

Elliot Morley: County waste management plans are a matter for the relevant county. It is for it to decide, following consultation, what options to include in line with the waste hierarchy and the best practicable environmental option as set out in Waste Strategy 2000.

Bob Russell: The Minister will not be surprised to be told that that is the usual answer that we are given. I pay tribute to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), for being the best friend that the environmental lobby had—some would say the only friend—in this Government. He was of the view that there is no legal requirement on Essex county council to include incineration in its waste plan. Unfortunately, the Conservative-controlled county council claims that there is. Given the confusion, would the Minister come to county hall, Chelmsford and explain exactly why the scheme is necessary, as his predecessor accepted a similar invitation to do just that?

Elliot Morley: I must say that I did not notice that in the diary, but of course I will look at that invitation and treat it with respect. I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that the green lobby is not friendless in the Government. As for whether there is a legal requirement to include incineration in the waste plan, the answer is that there is not. It is something for the waste authorities to look at in relation to the disposal hierarchy, at the top of which is waste minimisation. In some circumstances, there may be a case for some form of incineration or thermal treatment—incineration is not the only option. However, the choice of the most appropriate disposal and the most appropriate technology for dealing with waste is a local one.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I tell the Minister that if he is going to Chelmsford, he will not get there without going through Thurrock, where we can show him the wholly unacceptable effects of decades of landfill? All those wretched barges that go past the House are heading to Thurrock with London's waste. The message that I want to give the Minister is that waste must be disposed of in the place where it is produced, not in my backyard or that of my constituents. While I am sympathetic to the point made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), anything is better than landfill—the polluter must always pay.

Elliot Morley: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend who makes a persuasive case for going to Thurrock as well.
	In the hierarchy of disposal, landfill is at the very bottom, and should be the last resort. We strongly support the proximity principle of dealing with waste as near as possible to the place where it is generated. However, the key is that there must be a clear policy across the country, and local authorities need to play their part in reducing the amount of waste going to landfill. Central Government will play their part through the implementation of waste programmes, including the waste resources action programme. However, this is about meeting those targets, minimising waste and reducing the amount going to landfill.

Mr. Speaker: Jerry Wiggin.

Bill Wiggin: Thank you Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and the rest of my family—I feel very welcome.
	I have just spoken to Essex county council, and the Minister will be interested to know that it neither promotes nor excludes incineration. I can understand why incineration is such a contentious subject in Essex—nobody wants an incinerator in their backyard. Thanks to the fallen stock directive, there will 200,000 tonnes of fallen stock to incinerate, including 1.3 million adult animals, 2.6 million immature ones, and 36 million poultry. Should not the Minister insist on energy recovery from incineration, which might have a better and more important impact on our environment than the fallen stock directive?

Elliot Morley: First, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role on the Opposition Front Bench? I certainly look forward to his contributions in future.
	Incineration is not the only option for dealing with fallen stock, as rendering is another important method. On the serious point that the hon. Gentleman made about incineration, I should say that, occasionally, there may well be a role for it. The UK's incineration capacity may be the lowest in Europe in relation to waste structures, but if incineration or other forms of thermal treatment such as gasification are to be used, I agree that, wherever possible, they should be designed so as to recover heat and energy from waste, particularly in combined cycle processes. That option can certainly be considered. I accept that Essex has not ruled incineration in or out, but the priority is finding the most appropriate way of minimising the amount of waste going to landfill.

Common Agricultural Policy

Harry Barnes: How many representations she has received in the past month about the operation of the common agricultural policy.

Margaret Beckett: In the past month there have been 15 meetings and events that I, ministerial colleagues and officials from my Department have attended in which CAP reform has formed a major part of the discussions. Those meetings included individual farmers, farming unions, and environmental, consumer and landowner organisations, as well as Ministers from other countries. We have also received around 30 letters and a number of telephone calls from hon. Members and members of the public about CAP reform.

Harry Barnes: Following the CAP agreement in Luxemburg, what impact on third world agricultural imports and exports does my right hon. Friend seek from the World Trade Organisation negotiations in Mexico? Will the United States of America be influenced by the position adopted by the European Union and being pressed by the Government?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend will know that the European Union has already made an offer on the issues of market access and related matters, which lies on the table. The element of the negotiations on the world trade round that had not yet been dealt with was the issue of domestic subsidies, which was subject to the recent reform negotiations. I very much hope, and it will be the negotiating aim of the British Government, to improve the position and the access of developing countries, and to liberalise trade in general. With regard to the United States, I am strongly of the view that it will have been a surprise to all our negotiating partners that the EU has moved so far and made such major changes. We believe that that puts pressure now on others to take heed and similarly to consider what moves they should make to contribute to trade liberalisation, and there is some evidence that such rethinking is going on.

Cheryl Gillan: With such advances in the reform of CAP, does the Secretary of State have a vision for the endgame on reform? Could we perhaps look forward to wholesale repatriation of the policy, and, if so, on what time scale?

Margaret Beckett: If by the wholesale repatriation of the policy the hon. Lady means that there should no longer be a common agricultural policy—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] It is no good Opposition Members saying hear, hear. It was not we who brought in the single European market, and it is not possible to have a single European market without having a common agricultural policy. What is important, though, is that the core of that common policy should be much more satisfactory than at present. That is what we have just secured.

Lawrie Quinn: Has my right hon. Friend received any representations from upland farmers, such as those who live and work in my constituency in the North York Moors national park? The reforms could have a considerable impact on those farmers who are on marginal incomes, working on marginal land in remote marginal areas. If she has not received such representations, will she consider coming up to the North York moors and meeting some of my constituents to hear what they think about the proposals?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case on behalf of his constituents, as ever. I am mindful of the concerns that he and others raise. It was very much part of our approach to the reform negotiations that we should have the capacity to deal with some of the problems and issues that reform will throw up, and we were mindful, as were many other member states, of the impact on those who farm marginal land. My hon. Friend and his constituents will like to know that we are about to launch a consultation exercise in England on the options available to us under the reform agreement, and we expect to follow that up with a more detailed consultation later in the year, when the legal texts are in place and there is more detail on the implications. One of the reasons for seeking, successfully, to negotiate a national envelope was to give us room for manoeuvre to deal with the kind of issue that my hon. Friend raised.

David Lidington: Does the right hon. Lady agree on the importance to farm businesses and others of making sure that there is a smooth transition from the current arrangements to the new system of payments? Given that her Department's figures, in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), show that the Rural Payments Agency is late this year in dealing with more than 230,000 claims worth more than £95 million, what action is she taking to guarantee that the RPA will be capable of introducing the new system efficiently and on time?

Margaret Beckett: I entirely recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Although we were a little disappointed in some ways that the initial proposal date for reform in 2004 was postponed until the beginning of 2005, that will help us in securing a greater possibility of smooth transition. We are very mindful of exactly the point that he makes. The RPA has been suffering after the installation of new IT, which was much needed, but has certainly caused difficulties. The staff are working extraordinarily hard to overcome those difficulties, with a certain measure of success. I assure him that it is no wish of mine to see valuable reforms discredited because we cannot introduce them as effectively as we would wish.

Paddy Tipping: Despite comments from Opposition Members, does the Secretary of State recognise that the significance of the mid-term review is that it gives the UK Government and other partner states more flexibility to meet national need? Will she begin a series of meetings with farmers and landowners, so that they can understand the nature of the reforms and plan their businesses appropriately?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is entirely right that we need to get out as much information as we can as speedily as we can through organisations such as the National Farmers Union and whatever other channels we can use. We shall certainly endeavour to do that. As I said, I have already identified a two-stage consultation process, but one of the potential advantages that we see in the reform proposals is that they will allow us to introduce greatly simplified schemes, so I hope that the issues will not be nearly so difficult to explain.

Common Agricultural Policy

Anne McIntosh: What representations she has received on the proposals for rural development policy under the mid-term review of common agricultural policy.

Alun Michael: We received 117 responses to our consultation on the Commission's CAP reform proposals, most of which commented on the rural development aspects. Like ministerial colleagues and officials from the Department, I have had numerous meetings over the past six months with a wide range of stakeholders. CAP reform was a part of those discussions, which included the wider rural dimension.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that the new system will be overly bureaucratic and extremely expensive to apply? As the current Administration cannot cope with the present rural payments scheme, how will they cope with the new one, which has to be paid into a central pot from which we will get back only a certain percentage to spend in this country?

Alun Michael: I should point out to the hon. Lady that, for rural development, the package will mean that more funds have been switched from pillar one to pillar two under EU compulsory modulation. The implementation date has been brought forward a year to 2005 and the UK will get a bigger share of those funds, at about 11 per cent. We are working very hard to try to reduce the amount of bureaucracy that is involved in the England rural development programme. One has to accept that it involves a lot of bureaucracy, but we are trying to do all we can to use the mid-term review as an opportunity to simplify systems.

Bob Blizzard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that rural development policy should include support for the development of biofuels, not only to give us an environmentally friendly fuel, but to create much-needed new markets for farmers? Does he agree that the key to that support is a reduction in duty rates? Are there any environmental reasons why there is such a large differential in the duty rate reductions given for liquefied petroleum gas and biodiesel?

Alun Michael: The complexity of my hon. Friend's question illustrates the mixture of issues that this matter involves. I agree that we want to see the promotion of biofuels and ministerial colleagues and I are looking at that issue. Of course, the mixture of technicalities, the question of bringing products to market and tax regimes are all part of the bigger equation.

Michael Jack: The Minister will appreciate that, under the mid-term review proposals, some farms will be eligible for all their land to receive payment under the new decoupled arrangements, while others such as those that have mixed arable and horticultural crops will still have to pay for all their environmental responsibilities, but not with money related to their whole cultivable land area. What will be done to respond to the environmental demands of those who produce horticultural crops either on 100 per cent. of their land or part of their land under the new arrangements?

Alun Michael: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. Of course, the choices that farmers made on previous occasions have implications. It is also worth pointing out that the Commission has committed itself to making transitional arrangements for member states that are operating voluntary modulation; that should enable the UK to roll out the entry level agri-environment scheme, which is important for the industry as a whole.

Darwin Mounds

Tam Dalyell: If she will make a statement on her work with the European Commission to devise measures to protect the Darwin Mounds from damage caused by fishing trawl nets at deep water levels.

Ben Bradshaw: We wrote to the European Commission on 23 June pressing the case for it to introduce emergency measures to close the Darwin Mounds to damaging fishing activities.

Tam Dalyell: Is fishery protection going to be afforded this summer and autumn; otherwise, it will be goodbye to the Darwin Mounds?

Ben Bradshaw: I share my hon. Friend's frustration with the length of time that it has taken for us to get movement on this. However, I remind him that this is the first time that any member state of the European Union has requested that the Commission use its new powers to protect the marine environment—powers, I might add, that we helped to negotiate in the course of the reform of the common fisheries policy. Following talks in Brussels yesterday involving the head of fisheries in our Department, we are confident that the Commission is taking our request seriously.

GM Public Debate

Simon Thomas: How many individuals have participated in the GM public debate.

Elliot Morley: More than 1,000 individuals participated in the six regional launch events. Many more people have taken part in local meetings or through the debate website. Although we do not have exact figures, more than 17,000 feedback forms have been received so far.

Simon Thomas: I thank the Minister for that reply. As I understand that only 14,000 feedback forms were published, that is a pretty good result. At least someone is contributing to the debate. What was the tenor of those replies? Did they run in favour of the commercial planting of GM crops?
	In the debate in Westminster Hall a couple of weeks ago, the Minister was good enough to say that although the GM public debate was coming to an end tomorrow, the public would have a chance to inform the ongoing debate when the results of the field trials and other studies were published in the autumn. Will he say a little more about that?
	Will he explain how it will be possible for consumers to ensure that they do not have to eat GM foods, if that is their choice?

Elliot Morley: On the latter point, labelling and traceability has to be the key. We are strongly in favour of that, and we welcome the proposals that have been made by the European Union.
	In relation to the ongoing debate, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment has agreed to facilitate a public event to provide an opportunity to consider the results of the field-scale evaluations once the Royal Society has evaluated them in September.
	Feedback from the public debate was organised by an independent steering board, and the Government have not had a chance to see the full details. The responses will be presented to the Government in due course; we will of course take very seriously the views that have been registered.

Michael Meacher: Given that the Prime Minister's strategy unit reported last week that there is currently no economic case for GM in the UK; given that there are clear health and allergy risks as there have been virtually no health tests on human beings in relation to eating GM food; given that the environmental farm-scale evaluation trials are extremely narrow and limited; given that the Canadian experience shows clearly that GM will wipe out the organic sector—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementaries should be only one question.

Michael Meacher: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Elliot Morley: I understand the views of my right hon. Friend; we have had the opportunity to discuss them on several occasions. The report that came out of the No. 10 strategy unit was fair, balanced, open and transparent. It made clear, with no illusions, the detailed situation in relation to the economic role of GM crops and public reaction to them.
	In relation to the other issues that my right hon. Friend raised, I promised that I would write to him in some detail. That letter has now been completed, and he will receive it in the next day or two.

Robert Key: My understanding of the situation is that the Government do not intend that the debate will be closed down on any particular day; that their purpose is to stimulate the widest possible public debate; and that the only people who are seeking to close down the debate are those whose minds are firmly made up and firmly closed. Can the Minister confirm that?

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman is correct. As with all issues, some people take polarised positions and are not prepared to listen to the arguments. I do not believe that that applies to the majority of the public, who are interested in this issue and who want to see the arguments for and against. I can confirm that this is an ongoing debate. A whole range of issues must be decided, such as the evaluation of the field-scale trials and issues of co-existence and of environmental liability. There will be opportunities for public debate and discussion, and we will ensure that the public get those chances.

David Taylor: But who will speak for those in the poorest and hungriest countries who feel that, at best, genetic modification is a technological fix that tackles the symptoms of hunger but does nothing to tackle the causes? Is it not the case that the problem—corporate control of the food chain through patents and seed ownership—remains unaddressed?

Elliot Morley: There are a range of issues relating to developing countries, including the claim that GM technology may offer advantages to them. Such claims should be examined on their merits, and examined critically. I also accept that GM is only one of a number of issues in terms of dealing with the problems of developing countries, and we should take all of those seriously.

Andrew George: But what is the hurry? The public are at best suspicious, the science is not ready, the supermarkets say that they will not stock the stuff, and it would be a public relations disaster for farmers. Does the Minister agree that these decisions should be based on sound science, not quick, make-do or hasty science? Therefore, what reassurances can he give today that he is prepared to face down the GM and biotech lobby and the United States to ensure that we do not take a decision in haste that we repent at our leisure?

Elliot Morley: I remind the hon. Gentleman that this discussion on GM has been going on for long time. I participated in the debate on introducing the moratorium in 1997–98, when I was a Minister in the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That moratorium has been in place, the supply chain initiative on modified agricultural crops has been set up, and we have had the field-scale evaluations. A lot of hurdles remain to cross before we will be able to consider commercialisation in the UK, so I do not believe that there is a great dash towards GM.
	What we cannot ignore, however, is that GM is a fact of life in large parts of the world. We are in a global market, and we cannot ignore the impact of that, which is why we must consider such matters as labelling, regulation, consumer choice and choice for farmers and processors. We are doing all those things in parallel.

Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend will know that the science review is part of that public debate. Can he give a date for its publication? Does he agree that it must be seen to be objective and independent? Does he share my concern that the food safety section on GM is being written, so I am told, by a Monsanto employee, who clearly has a direct interest in the industry?

Elliot Morley: I can tell my hon. Friend that the projected date for publication is September—

Joan Ruddock: Of the science review?

Elliot Morley: Sorry, that review is expected to be published between the end of July and the beginning of August. It is true that the science panel has two members who are connected with biotech industries, but I should point out that it consists of 26 people, and that two other members are from non-governmental organisations. The idea is that the scientific panel should offer a balance of views, so that there is a proper, balanced, open and transparent submission that people can consider on its merits.

John Hayes: It is difficult to have faith in the Government's policy on GM when the former Minister responsible—a man whom I admire, the whole House admires and the Chancellor, apparently, particularly admires—is so doubtful about it. That right hon. Gentleman has called for sound, independent and thorough research, which is surely a prerequisite of a valid debate and valid conclusions. Will the Minister therefore make all such research that the Government have received available to Members of the House, commission new research when it does not exist, and have a public debate based on that kind of research evidence? If the Government do not do so, people will ask, "What do they have to hide?".

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman is getting prematurely paranoid on this issue. I can assure him that all scientific papers and reviews will be made available to the House and to the public at large. The whole idea of the scientific review is to pull together the research that is being done on GMs, and I have made it clear that there will be an ongoing public debate on this issue. People will be free to express their views, as will hon. Members on both sides of the House, according to the procedures of the House. We will take that seriously and, above all, we will make sure that everything that emerges from the research, from public concerns and concerns raised by hon. Members is taken into account in an open and transparent way.

UK Beef Industry

Peter Duncan: If she will make a statement on prospects for the UK beef industry.

Alun Michael: The prospects for UK beef are excellent. The recent recommendation by the Food Standards Agency to phase out the over-30-month rule is a demonstration of high confidence in UK beef. Producer returns are at their highest level since 1995, and CAP reform will simplify support systems and encourage beef farmers to produce what the consumer wants.

Peter Duncan: The Minister will be aware that the lifting of the over-30-month scheme will be welcomed by everyone in the UK beef industry, particularly in my constituency. However, the manner in which the scheme is to be removed poses a real threat to price stability in the industry, with the threat of a collapse in market price if change is effected too quickly. Some very fragile rural communities face uncertainty once more. Will the Minister commit his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to looking once again into phasing out the scheme over two, three or four years, to provide market stability while ensuring that consumer confidence is maintained?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman raises some important issues. It is clear that a large increase in supplies of beef could cause disruption to the market. We are discussing the implications of changes to the OTM rule with the European Commission, which has primary responsibility for managing the market in the EU. We have also set up a working group with the industry to explore the likely impact on the market of increased supplies of beef and how they can best be managed. So we are addressing the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

David Curry: Does the Minister accept that to get rid of the over-30-month scheme would be an enormous prize for the whole agricultural industry? We had to introduce it because there was an emergency in people's confidence in food and in animal health. That had the consequence of closing our export markets. It would be absurd if we put the cart before the horse and failed to recognise that getting rid of the scheme would be the greatest vote of confidence that we could possibly give our industry. Will the Minister ensure that, even if there are risks of market disruption, they are balanced against the prize to be seized from the scheme's removal?

Alun Michael: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The confidence that has been placed in the British beef industry is well merited. When one meets beef producers around the countryside, it is interesting to see that many are now taking the initiative to connect well with their market, not only by producing what consumers want but by getting across to them the quality of the product that they are offering. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: we should have confidence in the industry.

Douglas Hogg: May I reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has said? It would also be reassuring to know that the Minister was keeping under review the need to continue testing over-30-month beef. In particular, will he also keep under review the costs of those tests?

Alun Michael: Yes, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right; we are absolutely committed to that course.

Genetically Modified Organisms

Gregory Barker: If she will extend the period of the Government-sponsored public debate on genetically modified organisms.

Elliot Morley: The public debate was announced last July, and we have already extended the timetable by three months at the request of the steering board. The public can, of course, continue to debate the issues surrounding GM after GM Nation has formally concluded.

Gregory Barker: We have heard in the House this morning that there is still a great deal of interest in this debate, as well as a great many unanswered questions. I simply do not understand why the Minister cannot extend into the autumn this clear channel for the public to focus their remarks, given that so much more research is being produced. The university of Manitoba has undertaken an evaluation for the Canadian wheat board of Monsanto's GM Roundup Ready wheat, which concluded:
	"Under current conditions the release of Roundup Ready wheat in western Canada would be environmentally unsafe."
	When this quality of research is coming through, why close down this very useful channel of public feedback?

Elliot Morley: It is because this is a formal process. The independent GM public debate steering board under Professor Grant has done a good job in encouraging public participation. That is why so much has been written about the subject recently and there is much debate in Parliament. That has been the spin off from that debate. However, we cannot keep a formal structure going indefinitely. That does not mean that the opportunity will be closed off for people to comment and to raise issues, for those issues to be examined, and for answers to be given by our independent specialist bodies, but we do not need a rolling, formal public debate with no end.

Norman Baker: The public want more time to make their views known. The Food Standards Agency's report yesterday stated:
	"The potential impact of GM crops on the environment was the issue that gave rise to most concern"
	among consumers. In answer to the previous question, the Minister talked about the many hurdles to cross. Does he accept that the most important hurdle to overcome is the complete absence of an environmental liability regime? It would be quite improper to allow any commercial planting until such a regime was in place. Will he guarantee that a regime will be put in place before any commercial planting is allowed?

Elliot Morley: There are EU agreements on environmental liability. We have also asked for advice from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission on how we should structure a particular liability regime in this country. I suspect that existing law provides recourse in relation to liability, but that is a matter for legal opinion. Liability is but one issue that is not yet resolved. We cannot have commercialisation until we have examined a range of issues and established a proper framework to ensure that, as the bottom line, if people do not want to buy and eat GM produce, they do not have to. That consumer choice should be protected, which is our intention.

Jonathan Sayeed: Has the Minister noted that it is possible to produce valuable new species without resorting to genetic modification? Is he aware that F.B. Parrish Farms in Chicksands in Bedfordshire has produced a new species of onion called the "supasweet", which is tear free and a valuable addition to the healthy-eating salad market? Will his Department do all it can to promote that product?

Elliot Morley: I have heard about this new onion development, and I am very impressed. I do not know whether it also helps with breath odour after eating onions, which would be a particularly impressive breakthrough. There have been an awful lot of advances in conventional agriculture. Although, understandably, people focus on GM, the report from the strategy unit stressed that GM is but one approach, and that there are conventional ways of achieving advances in agricultural technology. The hon. Gentleman has given us a good example of that.

Aviation (Environmental Impacts)

Tom Brake: What recent discussions she has had with the Department for Transport on the environmental impacts of aviation.

Margaret Beckett: My ministerial colleagues and I have regular discussions with the ministerial team in the Department for Transport on many issues, including the environmental impacts of aviation. DEFRA Ministers and officials are closely engaged with the Department for Transport in taking forward the aviation White Paper and seeking to ensure that environmental concerns are addressed.

Tom Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for that response. She will be aware that the royal commission estimates that by 2020 aviation's contribution to greenhouse emissions will have risen sharply to 22 per cent. of the UK's total. What assessment has she made of that, and of the impact it will have on the Government's aspirational targets for reducing CO2? Will she work with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Department of Trade and Industry, supporters of an international aviation fuel tax, to raise the issue of such a tax in the international forums that she attends?

Margaret Beckett: Yes, I am conscious of the royal commission's assessment. I have not made a separate assessment or calculation, although people keep this matter under continual review. Irrespective of whether the precise figures are correct—no doubt different scientists will have different views, because that always happens—emissions from aviation make a substantial contribution, and we are mindful of that. As for a fuel tax, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have always pressed the International Civil Aviation Organisation to examine these issues, because they are subject to international, not just domestic, agreement, as he rightly identified.

Alan Whitehead: During the period preceding the finalisation of moves towards an international fuel tax, has my right hon. Friend considered proposals from the Carbon Trust and other organisations for voluntary "green" carbon restitution levies on air tickets, related to the amount of carbon that could be restituted from the flights involved?

Margaret Beckett: I know of a number of initiatives from various organisations, of which that is one. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to suggestions that, where emissions continue, we should consider creative methods of restitution. I think that that is a valuable and worthwhile initiative, particularly because it publicises the issue; but, as I am sure my hon. Friend will be the first to agree, it is not as important as mitigating the environmental impacts in the first place.

David Lidington: As the right hon. Lady will know, the Sustainable Development Commission believes that, given current trends, carbon emissions from aviation will negate all the savings made under the Government's climate change programme. Does she agree with that assessment? If so, are the Government now seriously considering bringing aviation within the ambit of the European Union emissions trading system?

Margaret Beckett: What comes within the ambit of that system is a matter for mutual negotiation, and these issues will obviously be raised during such negotiation.
	As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), there will always be different calculations and different figures. I know the Sustainable Development Commission believes that the emissions will negate all the savings, and I have noted other suggestions that do not go quite as far. I do not think anyone disputes the fact that unchecked emissions and unchecked traffic could make a substantial dent in the savings that we are committed to making. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are keeping all these issues under constant review.

Kelvin Hopkins: Has the Department considered, specifically and in detail, the environmental impact of airport expansion in the south-east, and have comparisons been made? If so, and if it is decided that expanding Luton would cause the least environmental damage, will my right hon. Friend make that point to her colleagues?

Margaret Beckett: That is very much part of the evaluation that my colleagues in the Department for Transport are undertaking. I am aware of Luton's inventive efforts to press its case, and interested to note that my hon. Friend supports them.

Convention on the Future of Europe

Mark Lazarowicz: What assessment she has made of the implications of the proposals from the Convention on the Future of Europe on processes for reaching decisions in the EU on environmental policy.

Elliot Morley: The Convention's proposals would leave the main elements of that process largely unchanged. However, we do not support the proposal to create a single Legislative Council.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am pleased that, in its final proposals, the Convention restored environmental protection as one of the EU's core objectives after its removal from the original draft. Will my hon. Friend assure us, however, that the Government will ensure, in the negotiations to follow, that it remains one of the core objectives? Given the exchange that has just taken place on air fuel, does he agree that there is a strong case for the EU to have a greater role in co-ordinating environmental protection on a Europe-wide basis?

Elliot Morley: We think that issues such as air travel and pollution should be dealt with in the Environment Council, but I assure my hon. Friend that the statement about environmental protection in the constitution is considered important and is fully supported by the UK. We shall want to ensure that it remains.

Angus Robertson: During its analysis of implications of the draft EU constitution, what conclusions has the Department reached on why the concentration of marine biological resources is to be an exclusive competence, while the common agricultural policy is not? The Leader of the House was unable to explain that to the European Scrutiny Committee yesterday; can the Minister explain it to the House today?

Elliot Morley: I can certainly give an explanation relating to the common fisheries policy, which has always been an exclusive competence of the Commission. The constitution states the position exactly.

Wayne David: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposals in the draft constitution for the European Union, which include greater powers for the European Parliament, will make further reform of the common agricultural policy more likely?

Elliot Morley: I think that there is an argument to be had on that point on both sides. We want to ensure that we do not have a hugely bureaucratic, cumbersome and slow decision-making process in the European Union. We recognise that it is important to involve the European Parliament, and there is a very strong role for co-decision, but it has to be balanced against the need to take quick and efficient decisions without excessive bureaucracy.

Fallen Stock Directive

Archy Kirkwood: What representations she has received from representatives of the meat trade about the costs involved in the implementation of the fallen stock directive.

Ben Bradshaw: There is no such thing as the fallen stock directive, but I have received a number of representations about the costs of implementing the ban on the burial of fallen stock under the EU animal by-products regulation.

Archy Kirkwood: I recognise that the policy thrust is right and I acknowledge that the Government have done a lot in this area to date, but will the Minister assure the House that he will talk urgently to his counterparts in the devolved legislatures in Scotland and Wales to try to establish a common, UK-wide disposal scheme? But in doing so, will he pay particular attention to the very large oncosts that some small butchers are having to deal with in terms of meat and bone refuse and off-cuts? In the course of their work, they are having to pay far bigger charges than certainly I expected. Does he understand that this is becoming an awful problem for Britain's butchers?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, we do recognise that this is a serious problem. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we cannot provide subsidised collection for retailers because it is against EU state aid rules; we can subsidise national collection only from primary production. I shall take on board his request that I speak to my colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—indeed, I have done so already. We are continuing to work hard towards a successful national scheme.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is the Minister aware that hunts provide a very considerable service in dealing with fallen stock, and that if the Government are determined to go ahead with banning hunting, a real animal welfare issue will arise? For example, it is very difficult to get animals with broken legs to a slaughterhouse; often, they have to be transported great distances and endure considerable suffering. Will the Minister consider that issue and see what can be done to ease the problem?

Ben Bradshaw: I am aware of the role that hunts play in the removal of fallen stock, but I do not think that it is quite as significant as the hon. Gentleman suggests. A small minority of livestock farmers are involved, and they, of course, are also free to join the national scheme.

Rural Community Transport

Norman Lamb: If she will make a statement on funding of rural community transport.

Alun Michael: Funding for rural community transport schemes is available from a wide range of sources. They include the Department for Transport's rural bus challenge, which provides start-up funding, and the Countryside Agency's rural transport partnership and parish transport fund programmes. Long-term funding is available through the bus service operators' grant, and local authorities can also use their revenue support grant, and capital resources provided through the local transport plan system, to support community transport schemes.

Norman Lamb: I thank the Minister for that response. I agree that the Countryside Agency has done a great deal to encourage and facilitate the development of community transport throughout the country, but is he aware of the very real concern that exists that, as the pump-priming money comes to an end, there is no sustainable funding to take its place? What is he doing to deal with this issue, and is he prepared to meet representatives of the Community Transport Association and other interested parties to discuss their concerns further?

Alun Michael: I am happy to confirm the importance of community transport, and I have met several people involved in a number of schemes in the past year. It is also worth noting that community transport plays an increasingly important role in rural areas generally. In recognition of that and as part of the Government's public service agreement target for improving rural services, we aim to increase the percentage of settlements in England benefiting from community transport to more than 50 per cent. by 2006. Pump priming through the Countryside Agency is meant to be just that: pump priming to help kick-start the availability of those activities. I listed in my original answer the various places from which support for community transport schemes is available.

Andrew Selous: Does the Minister understand the difficulties that local authorities and council tax payers face when rural bus services are funded for three years only? In the fourth year, there is a big hit on the local authority, causing council tax bills to rise even higher. If the services are worth funding, surely they are worth funding indefinitely.

Alun Michael: It is a little odd to suggest, on the one hand, that we should be helping to pump prime while, on the other, complaining when funds are taken away. Local authorities have a role in developing rural transport for their local communities. Through the local transport plans, they are required to produce bus strategies and to consider how to integrate conventional bus services with health and community transport as part of an integrated public transport network. We have tried to provide funding to enable people to realise that innovative schemes based in local communities are an important part of the solution to the problems in rural areas, in which the Government have made a large investment over recent years.

James Gray: As the Minister says, that there are 5,000 community transport schemes, running about 60,000 buses across rural areas. People throughout the countryside are extremely concerned that an overspend in the countryside and rights of way right-to-roam mapping exercise has resulted in a drying-up of the pump-primed funding through the Countryside Agency. Bizarrely, visitors to the countryside—walkers—have been given priority for Government funding over those who live in the countryside. Will the Minister reconfirm the central importance of community transport, particularly to the 25 per cent. of rural people who do not own a car, many of whom live in remote areas and are socially excluded? Does he accept that we need not only pump-primed funding, but long-term sustainable revenue funding for those vital services?

Alun Michael: That was a bizarre, ill-informed and muddled question. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that no cuts of the sort about which he talked have been made. The budget for the rural transport partnership has increased since last year by £2 million to meet demand. A hold was put on the "vital villages" expenditure by the Countryside Agency, which was grappling with the problems of success. It had so many applications that it decided, rightly, to prioritise to make sure that money went to the places where it was needed most. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is embarrassed when he looks back at the 18 years of Conservative government, during which his Government did nothing to help rural communities in the way that this Government have done.

Common Land

Roger Williams: What plans she has to bring forward legislative proposals relating to common land; and if she will make a statement.

Alun Michael: We will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows. In July 2002, we published the common land policy statement, which set out a comprehensive package of proposals relating to the registration and protection of common land and village greens. A working group has developed proposals for agricultural management of common land, and we will consult on those before the end of September.

Roger Williams: Common land is not only an important agricultural resource, but provides opportunities for wildlife conservation and recreation. Given that a report produced by stakeholders in the spring of this year was unanimous in its support for further legislation, and given that the mid-term review will give more opportunities for common land to be used in innovative ways, is it not time for the Government to bring this forward as a matter of priority?

Alun Michael: I have just indicated the way in which we will bring it forward. We recently had the report of the working group that we established, and we intend to consult on that by the end of September. I have not read the detail of the report yet because we have only just received it. The hon. Gentleman, with his constituency interest, will know that although the problems of common land and the biodiversity reasons for treating it with great care are understood, it is an enormously complex area of the law. I should be happy to discuss the issues with him once we have published the document, as I know of his constituency interest and the complexities in his part of the world.

BSE

Michael Fabricant: What assessment she has made of the threat of BSE infection in the national herd; and if she will make a statement.

Ben Bradshaw: The domestic BSE epidemic has fallen from a peak of over 37,000 cases in 1992 to around 1,000 cases last year. We must not be complacent, but that is significant progress towards eliminating the disease. Equally encouraging, red meat consumption is at its highest since 1985.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and it is good to know that the incidence of BSE has fallen. However, the Minister says that he wishes to be complacent, so does he accept that one of the real risks of re-infection is the importation of illegal meat into the United Kingdom? When I asked his colleague a similar question some months ago, it was revealed that only two sniffer dogs serve all the sea ports and airports in the whole of the United Kingdom. It was promised that something would be done about it, so how many dogs do we have now?

Ben Bradshaw: We do not get BSE by importing meat, but the hon. Gentleman is also absolutely wrong about the number of sniffer dogs. Since the responsibility for policing illegal food imports has been given to Customs and Excise, the number of seizures has more than trebled.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
	Communications Act 2003.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: Will the part-time and redistributing Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

Peter Hain: The business for the first week of the September sitting will be as follows:
	Monday 8 September—Second Reading of the Water Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 9 September—Opposition Day [15th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Wednesday 10 September—Opposition Day [16th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 11 September—Motion to approve the Fifth Report on the Committee on Standards and Privileges, followed by a debate on defence in the United Kingdom on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 12 September—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week after will include:
	Monday 15 September—Commons consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government Bill.
	I hope that the whole House will join me in extending birthday wishes to the right hon. Michael Foot, who will be 90 next Wednesday. Michael remains one of our greatest parliamentarians, who served the House and his constituents with great distinction for 42 years. We salute him and his passion for humanity, and we wish him well. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I would also like to wish all Members—and, more importantly, all the staff of the House—a very happy and relaxing recess.

Eric Forth: I am more than happy to echo the good wishes of the House to Michael Foot, and also to all colleagues and staff for the recess.
	Will the part-time Leader of the House confirm that the Northern Ireland suspension order will be reconfirmed by a statutory instrument, effectively hidden away in a Committee Upstairs? Does he not believe that that is a matter of major constitutional importance—not just for Northern Ireland, but for the United Kingdom—so it should and must be dealt with on the Floor of the House by the whole House? I hope that he will reflect on that matter, and if it is true, as I am informed, that the Government intend to hide the matter Upstairs, I hope that he will rethink and bring it to the Floor of the House—not least in view of the light business that he has announced for the first week back in September.
	On the proposals to abolish jury service, we know that the Government have decided to reverse, here in the House of Commons, their lordships' excellent stand on that matter. Does the Leader of the House intend to deploy Scottish Members yet again to deprive us in England of centuries of judicial history, or will he give an undertaking that, now and in future, Scottish Members will be asked for a self-denying ordinance not to interfere in English judicial matters, as we do not interfere in theirs? I hope that he can give us that undertaking.
	Yesterday in PMOs—

Michael Fabricant: PMOs? What is that?

Eric Forth: Prime Minister's obfuscations. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) asked the Prime Minister whether he would confirm his commitment to reduce the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster—a simple enough question, one would have thought. The Prime Minister said:
	"No, we made that commitment clear and we will of course carry it through."—[Official Report, 16 July 2003; Vol. 409, c. 278.]
	Typically for the Prime Minister, he did not tell us when. Can the part-time Leader of the House tell us when the commitment given by the Government to reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster will be carried through? Will it be during this Parliament, and before the next general election? That is a straightforward question and I hope that he can give us the answer to it.
	You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that notices of no fewer than 46 written ministerial statements have appeared on the Order Paper today. One of them is on the important and controversial issue of community pharmacies. We should be modestly grateful that the Government have responded to concern on that important issue in the form of a statement—but because it is a written statement, we cannot ask any questions on it. That statement contains some of the most obscure language that I have seen for a long time, even from this Government.
	I shall give the House a small example:
	"we will also make it easier for pharmacies to locate in areas where consumers already go, namely large shopping developments. But in doing so we must not undermine the market available to smaller community pharmacies. So only pharmacies wishing to locate in shopping developments over 15,000 square metres in size will be exempt from the control of entry requirement."
	I do not understand what that means, and as things stand we will not have the opportunity to ask what it means, because it is a written ministerial statement. It continues:
	"We will consult"—
	that is good, I suppose—
	"at the end of August, giving a full 12-week consultation period for comment."
	Will the part-time Leader of the House confirm whether the House will have an opportunity to question Ministers on the issue when we come back in September, so that we can clear up what that language means about an issue of such importance to all of our constituents?
	I have been approached this morning by a representative of some of our own staff in the House about a letter that has gone out this morning—in your name, Mr. Speaker—about the Portcullis pension plan. I would like the Leader of the House to give the matter some thought and work out how we may address the issue in the House. It is of the greatest importance to our own staff, because the letter contains a compulsion date of 1 November, by which time they will be compelled to switch to new pension arrangements. I am told that there has not been adequate consultation on the matter and that staff representatives—including unions—have not been given proper access to the decision makers on the matter. I hope, therefore, that it can be revisited before the compulsion becomes effective on 1 November, to give a proper opportunity for consultation, or an element of choice, to be introduced. That is the least that can be done for our staff and their representatives. I hope that in the spirit of good will that the part-time Leader of the House offered us on the occasion of our rising for the recess, he will be able to consider the matter urgently and give some reassurance to our staff, who will be directly affected.
	Other than that, I wish the part-time Leader of the House a very pleasant recess.

Peter Hain: It is good to see the shadow Leader of the House back at his job full-time, having taken time out to be wined and dined by members of the press upstairs last week. He missed an entertaining debut by his deputy, who was described by the Daily Mail's sketch writer as
	"Handsome boy. Charming. Moderate. Witty without overdoing it."
	The deputy shadow Leader of the House described his own performance in a notable column, in which he said:
	"Explaining what I actually do is much more complicated. In fact, I'm still working on it."
	The shadow Leader of the House asked several important questions, and I am happy to answer them. First, there is no intention to hide away anything on Northern Ireland. Such matters are debated on the Floor of the House, in the proper way, or Upstairs, in the proper way.

Peter Luff: The improper way.

Peter Hain: That is a ridiculous comment. When the Conservatives were in government they had statutory instruments and other matters discussed Upstairs in the proper way.
	The shadow Leader of the House says that the first week when we return is very light on business. There are Opposition debates on two of those four days—and if that means light business, the Opposition should consider more serious business and heavyweight agenda items for those days.
	The right hon. Gentleman said that the question of the number of Scottish Members of Parliament had not been properly addressed. That is not the case. There has been much press speculation that the Government intend to delay the reduction in Scottish representation at Westminster, but it was just that—press speculation. [Hon. Members: "When?"] I will come to that. There is no need for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement to the House at this stage. The boundary commission is required to submit its report between December 2002 and December 2006, and it is a matter for the commission when, within that time scale, it does that. As soon as may be after the commission has submitted its report, the Secretary of State for Scotland is required to lay the requisite order implementing those matters. We await the boundary commission's report. It is conducting important work, as no doubt you will know, Mr. Speaker. We shall see where we are after that.
	On the question about jury service, there is no proposition by the Government to abolish the right to jury trial, or jury service, as the right hon. Gentleman alleged. Some reforms have been proposed that the House of Lords has voted to block. In the process, it also blocked very important measures in the very important Criminal Justice Bill. [Interruption.] Oh yes it did. Those measures deal with violent sex offenders and gun crime, and I would be very interested to see whether the Conservatives follow the leadership of their comrades in the House of Lords and seek to block those vital anti-crime measures that our constituents want implemented.
	May I take the right hon. Gentleman up on the important point about the equality of Members of the House? We are all elected as Members of this sovereign House of Commons, whether we come from Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland, and I will assert to the end the equality of all Members of the House, who come from a United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman is effectively talking about dismembering the United Kingdom.

James Gray: What about Scottish Members?

Peter Hain: What about Northern Ireland Members? Such remarks are coming from a party that until recently called itself the Conservative and Unionist party—perhaps it still does. Is it a United Kingdom party or is it not? The right hon. Gentleman should come clean. Is he saying that Scottish Members should be debarred from equal consideration?

Eric Forth: indicated assent.

Peter Hain: In that case, is the right hon. Gentleman arguing—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do not shout at the Leader of the House.

Peter Hain: What about the English Tory Members who imposed the poll tax on Scotland? We know all about such behaviour.
	The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the 46 written ministerial statements. I think that it is important that Ministers have come to the House before the recess to bring the House up to date—[Interruption.] We have had a very busy time recently—[Interruption.] Indeed we have. That is why we have had to sit past the normal moment of interruption on a number of occasions this week. It is important that we have made written ministerial statements, and that there is to be a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, which will follow immediately after business questions.
	The Government have laid out a clear position that will protect local pharmacies. However, the right hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to question the Secretary of State on that matter after the recess, or even to hold an Opposition day debate on it should he want to.
	The Portcullis pension plan is, of course, not a matter for me. However, I want to stress that it was very misleading—inadvertently, no doubt—of the shadow Leader of the House to say that compulsion was involved. There is no compulsion involved in this process, and we would respect staff rights in this matter, along with those of everybody else.

Paul Tyler: I am delighted to associate my colleagues and myself with the comments made about Michael Foot. His strong Cornish connections mean that he is especially revered in the south-west. I also endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on the Portcullis pension scheme. There is real concern among staff in the House about the lack of consultation.
	Will the Leader of the House examine carefully the way in which the Government's overnight statement in response to the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform was brought before us? I hope that I can say that he had no part in its handling, because I hope that if I absolve him from responsibility he will take what I have to say in the spirit in which it is intended.
	Clearly, after the recess we shall require an early debate on the document, which is a miserable little response to an extremely important issue. It is late—it should have been produced last week—and it is suspicious that it was released at midnight, so that no one could have the chance to consider it carefully. However, worst of all is the fact that the way in which the document has been produced seems completely to deny what happened in this House, because it is deliberately misleading in several respects.
	For example, the Lord Chancellor's statement says:
	"Those votes resulted in a clear decision in the House of Lords in favour of a wholly appointed House. There was, however, no such clear decision from the House of Commons, which voted against every one of the Joint Committee's proposed configurations."
	The Leader of the House knows, because he too voted, that this House voted against a fully appointed House of Lords by a large majority, despite the fact that the then Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister supported that outcome. There is the first bit of misleading information, because this House voted down that option by a majority of 78.
	The Government's response continues:
	"The Government agrees with the Joint Committee's view that the Parliamentary votes have shown that there is no consensus about introducing any elected element in the House of Lords."
	That is patently untrue. You will know, Mr. Speaker, as will the Leader of the House, that a total of 332 Members voted in favour of a substantial elected element in the House of Lords—more than half the Members of the House. The problem was that they did not all vote in the same Lobby at the same time—some voted for an elected element of 100 per cent., some voted for 80 per cent. and some voted for 60 per cent. It is patent nonsense to say that we did not indicate that we wanted an elected element in the House of Lords.
	The Leader of the House knows that the following statement is misleading:
	"The Joint Committee highlights the position of the remaining hereditary peers. It remains the Government's policy, as set out in its White Paper in November 2001, that the remaining hereditary peers should be removed from the House."
	However, that is conditional on the existence of a package of reforms for the House of Lords; it cannot be done as a simple tinkering exercise on its own. The Leader of the House spoke about the sovereignty of the House, and this miserable little document ignores the votes of the House, so we expect him to stand up for us.

Peter Hain: Of course I will stand up for the House's rights in every respect, because that is my job. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on that, which we have already started to do. May I also express my gratitude for his remarks, and those of the shadow Leader of the House, about Michael Foot? As the hon. Gentleman will understand, the arrangements for the publication of the document are a matter not for me but for the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. Copies of the document have been made available in the Vote Office in the proper way.
	I shall now deal with the substance of the issue. Earlier this year, no option was supported by the House, which I regret. I voted for a fully elected second Chamber; that was my preference, and I had a free vote. However, there is no consensus in the House, and until that is achieved a sustainable long-lasting solution to the problem is not readily available.
	Nevertheless, there are important issues to deal with in the short term. The Government have a manifesto commitment to abolish the hereditary peers and to deal with the question of a proper independent statutory appointments procedure.

Paul Tyler: And?

Peter Hain: Indeed, we also have a commitment to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative, which is clear. We might be able to deal with those matters in the short time and provide a solution to take us a little way forward, but a long-term sustainable solution requires consensus in the House—indeed, in both Houses, I hope—on how to move forward. I look forward to hearing views from the hon. Gentleman, and from hon. Members of all parties, on how we may proceed so that we get a democratic second Chamber.

Robin Cook: I am happy—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Thank you. Perhaps I may be allowed to develop my point in my own way.
	I am happy to associate myself with the observation of my right hon. Friend in wishing a happy birthday to Michael Foot, one of our most distinguished leaders. Perhaps my right hon. Friend may wish to associate himself with me when I recall that one of Michael Foot's most celebrated passages of arms was when he stopped the creation of an all-appointed second Chamber in place of the House of Lords.
	My right hon. Friend cannot have forgotten that when we voted on the options, the largest single majority was against an all-appointed Chamber. He cannot have forgotten it because he was part of that majority. In the light of that outcome, will he explain why the Government will propose to the House of Commons that we have an all-appointed second Chamber
	"in a stable state for the medium term"?
	I am sure that my right hon. Friend has not forgotten—but perhaps others in the Government have—that in our manifesto we promised a democratic second Chamber. As for putting the Appointments Commission on a statutory basis, I remind him that two years ago the first batch picked by the Appointments Commission was such a public relations disaster that since then we have begged it not to propose any more appointments.
	My right hon. Friend knows this place. He will understand that unless the Government have a perspective for democratic reform in the longer term, he will have difficulty—and will deserve to have difficulty—in getting this pusillanimous, pathetic, mean measure through Parliament.

Peter Hain: I understand and respect my right hon. Friend's views. How we voted is on the record. Unfortunately, all the positions were defeated, although as he fairly points out, some more narrowly than others. We know what the House is against; the problem is that we do not know what it is for. In the meantime, we have to deal with the anomaly of hereditary peers, which no one can defend. It is a commitment in the Labour party manifesto, on which we were elected with a landslide victory, to resolve that anomaly. Making the appointments procedure more independent is part of that. We are consulting on that and will come back to the House after the recess to take that forward.
	I agree, however, that a fully appointed Chamber in the long term—[Hon. Members: "How long?"] I am not talking about the short-term issues that we need to confront. In the long term, a fully appointed Chamber is not, in my view, a sustainable solution to the problem.

William Cash: The United Kingdom opt-out from the euro has been deliberately excluded from the draft constitutional treaty that emerged from the Convention. The Leader of the House was, of course, the Government's representative in those negotiations. I tabled a question to the Prime Minister for that to be explained, which was due to be answered on 15 July. It was put to the Prime Minister, and he passed it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in turn passed it to the Chief Secretary. I still have not had a reply, but as the Leader of the House was responsible for negotiations, will he be good enough to explain why the arrangements for entry to the euro have been geared significantly against the UK's national interest? Why was the opt-out deliberately excluded? What are the Government going to do about it?

Peter Hain: On the precise point about the EMU opt-out, a number of protocols in existing treaties have not been brought into the existing constitutional treaty because there was not time for the Convention to address them. The Convention carried out serious and effective work in the intergovernmental conference, as the hon. Gentleman knows—

William Cash: It was deliberate.

Peter Hain: It was not deliberate. That is another fantasy. It is, frankly, one of those Tory porkies that are spread about Europe—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Yes, they are. A whole lot of porkies have been spread about Europe by Tories and their friends in the media, as though we were involved in a deliberate exercise. A number of protocols, including the opt-out, will have to be introduced through the IGC. They exist and are live. There is no mystery about that.
	We know what the real agenda is. The hon. Gentleman, along with his leader, is a supporter of the Bruges group, which on 24 February issued a press release that said of the European Union:
	"It would have been better if we'd never joined."
	That is their agenda: withdrawal from the EU.

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Points of order come later.

Dennis Skinner: Harking back to the argument about the Lords started by the Liberal spokesman—the argument about what happens to the House of Lords in future—is my right hon. Friend aware that the only way in which he could have got what he wanted—a truly 100 per cent. elected House of Lords—was by having a whipped vote on the Labour Benches? I take umbrage when I hear people, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), give the impression that they want their say, but only their say. Some of us—well over 100 Labour Members—want to abolish the undemocratic House of Lords. The same thing will happen whenever there is a free vote, but even if the Government want to whip me on the proposal supported by my right hon. Friends, I will still vote to abolish the lousy place. They should come clean. Those people who want their say on the matter should admit that they want a whipped vote, because it is the only way to get it through.

Peter Hain: It is great having my hon. Friend back in his inimitable fiery form. It is really good to have him putting such questions to me.
	Abolition of the House of Lords was another option—for which he and a number of colleagues voted—that was defeated. That underlines my point. All the propositions were defeated. So the House knows what it is against, but it does not know what it is for. I look to a time when there is a consensus in the House for a substantial, long-term and sustainable reform. If a Government Bill is introduced in future, there will, of course, be a whip, because this is a vital matter of constitutional reform.

Graham Brady: The Leader of the House asserted his strong, principled belief in the equality of all hon. Members. Will he confirm that after business questions it will be in order for me to go to the Table Office and table questions about schools in Scotland in the same way as Scottish Members can table questions about schools in my constituency?

Peter Hain: This is mischief making again. [Interruption.] Of course it is. It is anti-Scottish. When the Opposition get round to it, it will be anti-Welsh as well. We stand—[Interruption.] English Members on the Conservative Benches, and some on the Labour Benches, quite properly ask me questions as Secretary of State for Wales. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that they should be debarred from doing so? Of course not.

Harry Barnes: What will my right hon. Friend do about early-day motion 1579, which calls for brief questions and brief answers on the Floor of the House?
	[That this House appreciates the regular interventions of Mr Speaker to encourage honourable Members to ask succinct questions and for Ministers to respond in similar ways, thus enabling more honourable Members to be called during question times and in response to Ministerial statements; accepts the wise words of Plato (Protagoras 3429–3436) 'that the art of framing brief, taut and telling phrases is a mark of the highest culture'; and affirms its intention to now pursue the recept of Plato for 'laconic brevity'.]

Peter Hain: Yes.

David Burnside: I rise as a Member of Parliament for Northern Ireland who hopes, for as long as I am in the House, to speak and vote on all issues affecting all parts of the United Kingdom, in the same way as English, Welsh and Scottish Members will speak and vote on issues affecting my part of the UK, Northern Ireland.
	Will the Leader of the House join me in praising the peaceful weekend of the 12 July celebrations? Will he praise not only my fellow countrymen who are Orangemen like myself, but our Roman Catholic neighbours, who contributed to the most peaceful 12 July celebrations that I can remember for more than 30 years? The Leader of the House knows that we have not had devolution in an executive form since autumn last year. When we come back for the two weeks in September, will it be possible for the House to debate whether we can get a form of Government up and running at Stormont again that has both Irish nationalist and Ulster Unionist consent?

Peter Hain: We are anxious to achieve that, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We wish to work together with him, other Northern Irish Members and the parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly to achieve that result. It is a priority objective for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and we share that.
	I welcome the hon. Gentleman's earlier statement about the equality of Members in this place. The Conservative party has become an isolated party in the United Kingdom, with no representatives in Wales, for example, and a minority representation in England. Those Conservative Members who are seeking to balkanise the House are in a minority position in England, and they will continue to be so long as they advocate such ridiculous policies.

John McFall: My right hon. Friend will know that as a result of my position in the Treasury Select Committee I have received representations from credit unions over the past few years. They have expressed gratitude to both the Government and the Financial Services Authority for the progress that has been made in respect of their organisations. On a recent visit to Washington, I was informed that both the White House and Congress have credit unions, but the parliamentary estate does not. Within that estate there are thousands of workers, a number of whom are on comparatively low pay and would benefit from such an organisation. Will my right hon. Friend agree to discuss the issue with me to see whether he can take the matter forward?

Peter Hain: I will be happy to do that. My hon. Friend has raised an important point. Credit unions are very strong in Wales, for example, and I am a great supporter of them.

Andrew Murrison: Thousands of criminal cases that involve mandatory life sentences are awaiting the awarding of tariffs. That is causing a great deal of distress to many of the families of victims. Given the huge backlog that has emerged and is developing, will the Leader of the House encourage the Home Secretary to outline to the House a timetable for the setting of tariffs?

Peter Hain: I will certainly discuss that matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when I get a chance to do so.

Geraldine Smith: At this time of year, many hon. Members will, I hope, be considering taking British holidays at our seaside resorts, such as Morecambe, where they will see the splendour of the British coast. What they may not see is the squalor that often lies behind the promenades and façade. Will my right hon. Friend consider after the recess a debate on seaside deprivation? I can assure him that the pockets of deprivation that exist in some of our seaside resorts match anything in the inner cities.

Peter Hain: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that matter. I have visited her lovely constituency town of Morecambe, which is indeed an extremely good holiday destination. She makes the important point that behind the promenade lurks a great deal of deprivation. That is why the Government have a clear strategy for seaside resorts, and we look forward to working with her—

Eric Forth: It is not working.

Peter Hain: The right hon. Gentleman mutters that it is not working. Nothing worked under the Conservatives. We are introducing huge programmes of urban and seaside regeneration. Huge extra investment is coming in that they would cut under their 20 per cent. across-the-board cuts plan.

Tim Loughton: The part-time Leader of the House will be aware that last night we had a lively and well-attended debate on the Laming report and the continued lack of a Green Paper on child protection. Six months have passed since the Laming committee reported, and the Government have not yet made a statement or held a debate in Government time. Is it not therefore adding insult to injury to read in The Times today that a draft copy of the Government's response has been made available to that newspaper, which recommends drastic action such as the phasing out of child protection registers? Given that we have been calling for the immediate publication of the Green Paper, will the right hon. Gentleman at least publish the draft Green Paper, which, apparently, the press can have? Given that he made no mention of the Green Paper in his timetable for the week when we come back in September, despite the fact that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills promised it on the first day back, will he guarantee that there will be an oral statement by the Minister for Children or by her superiors, if the hon. Lady is still in place at that stage, so that Members will have the opportunity to ask those questions that we have been asking for the past six months, to which we have failed to get any answers?

Peter Hain: I have not read The Times this morning, though I plan to do so on my way home later today; it is a very good newspaper. The proposition that the Government should publish or bring to the House draft reports—

Eric Forth: Leak.

Peter Hain: Newspapers are quite enterprising operations and find all sorts of drafts lying in photocopiers, and so on. The proposition is ridiculous and shows how unfit the Conservatives are for government.
	On the substance of the matter, after the recess it is the Government's intention to bring forward the paper as published on children's rights. It will be the most comprehensive policy ever brought forward by any Government on children's rights and protection. Of course there will be a statement.

Iain Luke: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the warm welcome given to the strong statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the continued detention of Aung San Suu Kyi by the Burmese Government, a Government who still have close trading partnerships with a major British company. Since then, despite further pressure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, British American Tobacco has not yet taken a decision to disinvest. Will my right hon. Friend urge the Prime Minister to find time, when we return in the autumn, to bring forward powers similar to those that have been introduced in America, virtually unanimously by both Houses of Congress, to ban all trading relationships, including agreements between British companies and the Burmese regime?

Peter Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the Burmese regime is one of the most odious in the world. The sanctions on it, which the Government support, will continue until it frees the people of Burma and their brilliant leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. It is important that the sanctions are taken forward. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment met representatives of British American Tobacco and urged them to abide by the sanctions, and I hope that they will.

Paul Marsden: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on employment rights, particularly to safeguard those workers who face discrimination based on their sexuality? Early-day motion 1585 condemns the treatment of Canon Jeffrey John at the hands of a bunch of bigots in the Church of England. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in condemning those people?
	[That this House condemns the appalling homophobia in the Church of England which has forced the proposed Bishop of Reading, Canon Jeffrey John, to stand down; believes that in the 21st century such open prejudice should not be tolerated anywhere; and expresses its real disappointment in the Archbishop of Canterbury for failing to stand up to this bigotry. face discrimination based on their sexuality?]

Peter Hain: I condemn all bigotry. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the bigotry that was released around that unhappy episode. He has the opportunity to apply for a debate in the normal way.

Glenda Jackson: As the newly appointed commander-in-chief of coalition forces has stated that, far from being over, the war in Iraq has moved into a classic guerrilla mode, will the House be recalled should the situation in Iraq deteriorate during the recess, necessitating the possible deployment of additional British troops?

Peter Hain: The House will be aware that September sittings should alleviate the necessity for requesting a recall. I do not envisage that it will be necessary to recall the House on Iraq or on any other matter. Should such an eventuality arise, the option remains open.

Bob Spink: May we have a debate on hospices, so we might reveal that Government funding of adult hospices is 28 per cent., of children's hospices it is 5 per cent. and at Little Haven children's hospice in my constituency, it is 2.8 per cent? The Government cannot hide behind primary care trust decisions. The Government should take responsibility for the palliative care of these children at a devastating time in their lives. They should come forward with a policy on this matter.

Peter Hain: I commend the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. I share with him support and admiration for the work that is done by hospices. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will have noted carefully what he said.

Win Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend find time after the recess for an important debate on what could be a far-reaching change in the practice of the House, namely the publication of the Senior Salaries Review Body's report on the payment of Select Committee Chairs? In that debate, is there likely to be an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to consider whether House Chairs should be paid? I hesitate to say this, but given that I am retiring at the next general election, I have no long-term interest in whether the Speaker's Panel should be considered in this regard.

Peter Hain: We all regret the fact that my hon. Friend is retiring at that next election, as he has been a valuable servant of the House and, indeed, currently serves with distinction on the Chairmen's Panel. We published this morning in the proper way the SSRB report on that matter. It is important that we value the work of Select Committees and recognise the contribution of their Chairmen. The creation of a career path on the Back Benches has been recommended by numerous academics, commentators and independent studies. The Hansard Society commission and the Conservative party's own commission on strengthening Parliament both recommended that the chairmen of investigative committees be paid a salary equivalent to that of a Minister. Indeed, Jeremy Paxman advocated that path, so the policy must surely commend itself to the House. As for the Chairmen's Panel, its members do a very good job and put in a lot of hard work, and we will have to consider the matter. There is also the question of the Chairmen of Domestic Committees, who are not covered by the SSRB report.

George Osborne: Two weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister about the implications of the Sally Clark and Trupti Patel cases. Today, he has written to me with important new details about the way in which the Government will handle the aftermath of those cases including, for example, reviewing current prosecutions, setting up a group to look at previous convictions of people currently in prison and, indeed, producing a new code of practice for pathologists. That is all welcome stuff, but does the Leader of the House agree, given the enormous public concern about those cases, that there should be a statement or debate when we return after the recess so that we can press the Solicitor-General in greater detail about some of those issues?

Peter Hain: I agree that those issues are important. I will bring the matter quite properly raised by the hon. Gentleman to the attention of those concerned.

Clive Soley: In previous answers, my right hon. Friend seemed to accept that reform of the House of Lords is unfinished business. Will he clarify whether the Government regard their role as assisting the process of finding an acceptable solution in this Chamber and, indeed, the House of Lords? May I put it to him that both Houses and the Government should accept that a hybrid system is good for the constitution and a good way of reaching agreement, so we ought to go down that road? Will he consult on that and enable debates to take place on it?

Peter Hain: The Government will be considering those matters in the coming period. As soon as we are in a position to do so, having undertaken further consultations, we will come back to the House with recommendations on a way forward.

Patrick McLoughlin: This morning, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry published a report on post offices and the introduction of the Government's policy forcing pensioners to stop getting their benefits from the post office. That has had a devastating impact and is causing a great deal of concern among many sub-postmasters throughout the country. Is it not time that we debated that issue yet again so that the Government can respond to sub-postmasters' concerns?

Peter Hain: I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Obviously, as I have said in response to previous questions on this matter, local post offices have been under threat for decades because of the changing pattern of consumer behaviour. We must do everything in our power to protect them, and the important points made by the hon. Gentleman will be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Brian White: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Communications Bill received Royal Assent today, but he will also be aware that one problem that the Government had during its passage was that parliamentary counsel could not recognise that the definition of a citizen included anything outside the narrow definition relating to nationality. Will he explain why that key area of the public services remains a monopoly, and why it is denied the benefits of competition enjoyed by other public services? Will he look at that as part of his modernisation proposals?

Peter Hain: I am afraid that I am not going to give my hon. Friend an explanation in business questions, but I am sure that he can get one from the relevant Secretary of State.

David Heath: Will there be an opportunity for a debate on acute hospital services in the south-west? The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that Royal United hospital, Bath, along with the Bristol hospitals have, for the second year running, received a no-star rating, despite the fact that most people agree that there is nothing wrong with their surgical, medical or nursing facilities. The problem is past management mistakes and a huge debt. Will the Secretary of State for Health come to the House and explain what he will do to put things right for the people served by hospitals in Bath and Bristol?

Peter Hain: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that he has an opportunity to raise these matters in an Adjournment debate, but meanwhile I shall certainly bring his point to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health. However, in the interests of fairness, he will acknowledge that there is now record investment in the health service, and that more nurses and doctors are being recruited than ever before. There are record real-terms increases in health care, reversing decades of underinvestment and underspending on health by the Conservatives.

John Lyons: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many Members have recently been lobbied by members of the Trade Justice Movement, who are particularly worried about the summit in Cancun in September. Will he make time in the House for a statement and discussion on the debate in Cancun?

Peter Hain: I shall certainly look at that. The Government attach a lot of significance to the issue, as does my hon. Friend, and share his view that the objective of achieving trade justice is an important one. We will work to achieve that objective, and shall obviously report to the House in the normal way.

School Funding

Charles Clarke: Mr. Speaker, with permission I would like to make a statement about the funding of schools in the years 2004–05 and 2005–06.
	I begin with an assessment of the changes that have taken place in the past six years. Our country now has the best results at ages 11, 14, 16 and 18. We have tackled the shameful neglect of our school buildings and, by 2005–06, we will be investing over £5 billion in repairs and new buildings. We have delivered major increases in school spending, and school funding is up by more than 25 per cent. in real terms per pupil. It is no secret where the money has gone. We now have 25,000 more teachers and 80,000 more support staff than in 1997. Moreover, teachers' pay has improved significantly. For example, in 1997, a teacher with six years' experience received £20,040, while their counterpart today will, from September, receive £26,460, which is a real-terms increase of 13 per cent. We have also started down the road to a fundamental improvement in teachers' work load and working arrangements. Those are all achievements of which teachers, heads, governors, local and central Government can be proud.
	There is no doubt, however, that many schools have experienced real difficulties this year with their budget allocations. As I set out in my oral evidence to the Select Committee on Education and Skills earlier this week, a wide range of factors contributed to that situation. I will not repeat them here, but I wish to put on record my appreciation for the hard work of head teachers and local education authorities across the country in coping with those difficulties and continuing to improve the quality of education provided by their schools.
	In my statement on 15 May, I said that I would keep the House informed of my thinking, and give head teachers and LEAs early indications of our approach to help them begin planning for next year. My purpose today is to outline the first steps that we are taking to respond to schools' practical concerns about the present system. Following continuing consultation with representatives of local authorities, chief education officers and head teachers, I will make a further report to the House in the autumn. My guiding principles on the changes needed in the schools funding system for the next two years are as follows. First, every school should receive at least a guaranteed per pupil increase in funding for each year. Secondly, central and local government should make earlier announcements of the financial allocations to schools so that heads have greater certainty and time to plan. Thirdly, we should provide greater stability through a two-year settlement on teachers' pay, ring-fenced grants and the guaranteed per pupil increase in school funding. Fourthly, there should be greater transparency in the overall system of funding for schools. Finally, the reforms agreed with the key work force partners, as reflected in the national agreement on raising standards and tackling work load, should be sustained.
	The Government have been working intensively to identify a package of measures that will deliver those aims. This year, my Department provided a guaranteed minimum increase in the education formula allocations for each local education authority. In 2004–05 and 2005–06, I intend to go a stage further. My central proposal for each of these two years is to provide a guarantee at the level of the individual school, so every school will receive at least a minimum increase in its funding per pupil. Of course, many schools will receive more than this minimum. We intend to implement that through fair funding regulations, placing each local education authority under a direct obligation to provide for such a minimum guarantee. I will confirm the minimum percentage increases for 2004–05 and, provisionally, for 2005–06, by the time of the provisional local government finance settlement in November, when we have completed our analysis of costs in the system, in particular, on teachers' pay. We will share that analysis, and the rationale for the level of the minimum percentage increase, with our education partners.
	This guarantee will provide for a minimum funding increase in every school. That minimum will be based on the average cost pressures for 2004–05 and 2005–06. Obviously, it cannot match the precise composition of each school's current spending profile. For example, it cannot insulate schools from the effects of changes in their pupil numbers, or reflect their wide range of different staffing arrangements. Heads and governors will continue to need to plan ahead, with their LEAs, to take account of those features that are specific to every school, but I believe that our average per pupil guarantee will give schools a far more stable foundation.
	We are already discussing with our education partners how the guarantee will work in detail, and we will consult further. We will seek to agree guidelines to underpin the operation of these new arrangements, in order, for instance, to take proper account of the extra protection that LEAs already provide to very small schools. Within this framework, LEAs, heads and governors will work together through their schools forums to agree the funding baseline to which the guaranteed per pupil increase will be applied.
	For sixth forms, the Learning and Skills Council will, in both the 2004–05 and 2005–06 school years, provide each school with guaranteed minimum increases in funding equivalent to the per pupil guarantee for schools. The LSC will consult all heads of maintained schools with sixth forms in the autumn on its plans for improving the operation of sixth form funding for 2004–05.
	Some schools have found it necessary this year to spend from their reserves or from devolved formula capital allocations; others have set deficit budgets by agreement with their LEAs. Of course, schools and LEAs have the primary responsibility to manage the ongoing consequences of such decisions, including maintaining sound financial management and balancing budgets. The changes that I am introducing for 2004–05 and 2005–06 will help them to do so. However, I recognise that there may be some cases where doing so could be beyond the capacity of individual schools and LEAs. In those few cases, I will be prepared to consider limited, transitional support to avoid damage to children's education, where that is part of a locally agreed recovery plan between the LEA, schools and the Department. I shall discuss with head teachers and local authority representatives how best to provide such support.
	Of course, the minimum guarantee that I am offering today to schools can be fulfilled only by ensuring that each LEA has the necessary resources within its schools budget. There are two key elements. First, in both 2004–05 and 2005–06, I will set the minimum increase for schools formula spending share—SFSS—in each authority at a level that will cover the school level guarantee and provide the headroom necessary to enable the local fair funding formula to work, and to help provide transitional support to individual schools, where necessary. Secondly, we will ensure that the local authority receives sufficient central Government grant to passport in full the increase in SFSS into its schools budget.
	The Government will also provide additional resources for other local services, including children's social services, which are now my responsibility, over and above those announced for them in the last spending review. That will help to ensure that the arrangements I am announcing today do not create difficulties for other local services. The details will be announced in the autumn. Having provided these resources, the Government are determined that each and every school should benefit in the way intended.
	My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I will write to every local education authority setting out the Government's clear expectation that, barring wholly exceptional circumstances, each and every LEA should passport the full increase in its SFSS into a matching increase in the schools budget. That is essential if heads, governors, teachers and parents are to have full confidence that the resources intended for schools will indeed get through to schools. I have statutory powers to require LEAs to set a minimum schools budget, and I will be prepared to use those powers where it is necessary to do so.
	This year most LEAs' spending on centrally funded pupil services, such as special educational needs and excluded pupils, has increased significantly faster than their spending on budgets delegated to individual schools. It is essential that, in future, the individual schools budget receive its fair share of any increase, so my intention is that, in 2004–05 and 2005–06, spending on such central items should rise no faster than spending on the individual schools budget. I will consult on how fair funding regulations can ensure that this is delivered. In doing so, I will take account of the need for local flexibility on items such as the expansion of nursery provision to meet the Government's commitments.
	It is clear that a significant source of problems for some schools this year has been the changes in the standards fund. I will help to provide stability and security by maintaining and inflation-proofing the support that the standards fund provides to schools at its 2003–04 levels. That means that I am reversing the reductions previously announced for standards fund support to schools in 2004–05 and 2005–06. That will provide more than £400 million in each of the next two years, over and above existing plans. I will also be making earlier announcements on standards fund distribution, before the announcement of the provisional local government finance settlement.
	I am able to make such additional funding available from my end year flexibility, and other redirection of existing resources. I set out for the House in my Department's annual report the planned and prudent use of accumulated end year flexibility over the next three years to supplement resources secured through the spending review. This additional commitment means that my accumulated end year flexibility is now fully committed to support children, young people and adults in achieving their full potential.
	Head teachers should know their budgets in good time for the beginning of the financial year. I am taking a number of steps to provide earlier notification of their funding. As well as earlier notification on the standards fund, the Government will bring forward the date of the provisional local government settlement to the middle of November. We also intend to bring forward the date by which local authorities are obliged to notify me of their passporting intentions by one month to the end of December, and the Government will propose an appropriate amendment to the Local Government Bill on Third Reading in another place.
	It is vital that the reforms that we agreed with key work force partners, as reflected in our national agreement on raising standards and tackling work load, are sustainable. That remains a key priority for my Department. By maintaining the standards fund at its current level, we will help to ensure that schools receive the core funding that they need to make progress on implementing the work force agreement.
	On 11 July, I submitted my evidence to the School Teachers Review Body. That evidence makes the case for a two-and-a-half-year settlement on the basis of current targets for inflation. I have set out a clear strategy to enable sensible progression along the upper pay scale while controlling the costs, and I have asked the STRB to report on all the major issues in early November, so that LEAs and schools will have much earlier certainty about the level of pay cost pressures for the next two years.
	This year's problems have underlined the need to provide more and better support for schools and LEAs in planning and managing resources, and for schools forums, which have a key role to play in helping to secure local consensus on distribution. We will be discussing with education partners, the National College for School Leadership and others how best we can make rapid progress.
	Finally, I want to make it clear that this package is designed to secure stability and restore confidence in our funding arrangements for schools. We need to ensure that the schools funding system commands broad support, works to promote our overall objectives for raising standards in education, and so ensures that resources are used in the most effective way to secure higher quality and better levels of achievement in schools. I will, of course, be monitoring the impact of the changes I am announcing today, with a view to considering whether further changes are needed for 2005–06. It is critical to ensure that funding arrangements for schools are sustainable in the long term.
	I recognise that this has been a difficult year. However, I believe that the steps I have outlined today provide a realistic framework of stability and certainty for the next two years. We will work with LEAs and schools, within the framework I have set out today, to deliver the further improvements our children deserve. I commend this statement to the House.

Damian Green: I am, as always, grateful to the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement.
	The crisis that has caused the Secretary of State to come to the House with this statement has been both unnecessary and hugely damaging to our schools. Twelve months ago, his predecessor presented the Government's plans for education spending as a triumph. Six months ago, it was obvious to heads, teachers and parents across the country that the reality was cuts, redundancies and disappointment. For those six months, the Government have turned all their energy on a hunt not for a solution, but for a scapegoat. They tried blaming local authorities and they have even tried blaming heads for paying teachers too much.
	The ludicrous nature of that attempt to shift the blame from the Department, where it belongs, has finally been revealed today, when we learn that the Secretary of State's Department underspent by £846 million last year. So hundreds of teachers are being made redundant while his Department is sitting on the money that could have kept them in work. He referred charmingly to his accumulated end-year flexibility. Can he explain what is more urgent in his budget than stopping teachers being made redundant?
	The statement contains some detailed proposals that improve the current system. Bringing forward the date on which the School Teachers Review Body reports and the local government settlement so that schools' budgets may be set earlier will be helpful. But quite apart from the point about whether that is an adequate response to the crisis, there are key questions about the Government's own behaviour. One important point that the Secretary of State has made this morning is that he is recentralising, after last year's short flirtation with trusting local government. More of the pot of money will come from his Department in future, but does he not recognise that it is often his own Department that is the cause of the delays? Some schools do not know what money they will receive from the standards fund until well after they have set their budgets. He has tried to reassure them today. Can he give the House a guarantee that individual schools will know the amount of centrally distributed money that they are to receive before they have to set their budgets?
	Even more importantly, what will the Secretary of State do about the Government's besetting sin—trying to do the jobs of heads and governors for them? He will know the widespread view in our schools that the standards fund money is too often an excuse to tie schools up in a web of bidding and form filling to meet the needs of the latest ministerial initiative rather than of our children's education. If more money is coming directly from the Department, what does he propose to do about that micro-management?
	The most obvious gap in the statement is the absence of any hard numbers. Today, schools are going into deficit, cutting their capital budgets and sacking teachers. They want to know what their position will be next year. Nothing that the Secretary of State has said clears that up. He has promised what he called a minimum funding increase guarantee for schools next year. But this year, according to the comprehensive spending review, there was a real terms increase of 3.4 per cent., and yet we have had the crisis. So is he promising more than 3.4 per cent. next year? Is he also promising that the increase will meet all the extra costs that Government impose on schools? Will it meet the added costs for schools that have gone into deficit this year or that have spent their capital budget on revenue spending? If it does not do so, we will be back here next year with a repeat crisis.
	Will the Secretary of State also clear up what he means by an increase in funding? Funding sounds like it means a grant from central to local government to pay for schools. However, as he knows, in the arcane and rarefied world of local government finance, it can also mean the schools formula spending share, which is simply a theoretical estimate of what each council should spend. If all he is going to do is announce a big figure for that estimate that is not accompanied by the money from his Department, which is what he did to many LEAs this year, he will provoke a repeat crisis, with cuts in schools and a sterile argument between central and local government about whose fault it is. His words in this area were carefully opaque. Can he clear up the question whether the grant will meet not only the increase in the SFFS that he mentioned, but the backlog that so many LEAs have faced and has caused the crisis this year?
	The statement also appears to threaten the provision of spending on children with special educational needs and on the rescue services for pupils who have been excluded. I really cannot believe that he means to restrict spending specifically in those areas, where the most vulnerable children will be worst affected. Can he confirm what he appeared to suggest—that he intends to take powers to himself to stop local authorities spending too much on children with special needs?
	The Government will not be forgiven by parents and teachers for failing to cope with this year's funding crisis. This statement is designed to prevent another crisis next year. What the Secretary of State has to offer is greater predictability. Of course, predictability is good in itself, but if we discover in the autumn that schools are able to look two years ahead and simply predict more misery, cuts and redundancies, this year's level of anger will be multiplied, and this Government will go down as the Government who betrayed our schools.

Charles Clarke: I have to say that there was very little substance in those remarks. Let us get the facts clear. First, I am announcing today more money for schools throughout Britain in both 2004–05 and 2005–06. Secondly, I am absolutely clear that we need to ensure that the money that is allocated to local education authorities for schools is spent on them, so that money gets there in the right way. Thirdly, I am absolutely clear and I have announced today that the increase in expenditure between individual schools and central budgets should be balanced so that schools themselves get the resources that they need in an effective way.
	I am also clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that there is no commitment of any description from the Opposition to any level of funding increase whatever. Indeed, judging by the rhetoric of his party in the past, its commitment is to reduce funding on schools, and I think that we should take that into account in considering what it has to say.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me about numbers. It would indeed be foolhardy to offer numbers to schools when we do not know the level of the teachers' pay settlement, which forms such a substantial amount of any expenditure. That is why the commitment that I give is to make that announcement when we know the teachers' pay settlement following the proper review that has been set up. I think that that is an entirely correct approach. There is new money for schools in this approach in order precisely to give the confidence and stability that the system needs.
	I acknowledge—this is the one point that I acknowledge from what the hon. Gentleman said—that my Department needs to improve its practice on the allocation of standards fund information in good time. That is why I said that we would provide that information much earlier in the year than traditionally so that both schools and local education authorities can know better where they are. We are not interested in micro-managing schools' budgets. What we are interested in doing is ensuring that schools have enough money to take the decisions that they have to take to enhance education opportunities for themselves.
	I am proud of the announcement that we are making today. I think that it can offer the stability that is needed and that everybody will observe what has been said by the hon. Gentleman and notice the enormous hole at the centre of what the Conservative party has to say.

Barry Sheerman: May I give my right hon. Friend's statement a cautious welcome? It seems to address the major points of concern that we in the Select Committee on Education and Skills were putting to him only this week, so I give it a guarded and cautious welcome. It is a complex statement and we will want to go away and pore over it in some detail. There was an element of concern as he touched on special educational needs and pupil referral units, and on whether schools will be able to decide how much they spend on those matters.
	Overall, I give the statement a cautious welcome. My right hon. Friend seems to have hit the three main targets. Let us make sure that the Government are really on target when we consider the statement a little more closely.

Charles Clarke: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. As he says, this is a complex matter, and that is why I appreciate the detailed study that his Select Committee has made of this issue. I look forward to hearing any comments that he wishes to make once he has had the chance to have a considered look at the detail of the statement, but I appreciate the remarks that he has made at this stage.

Phil Willis: I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement, but he ought to be ashamed of the cowardly way in which he sneaked it out on the very day that schools go into recess for the summer, when they can do absolutely nothing about it.
	To date, the Secretary of State and his Ministers have arrogantly tried to blame everyone for this crisis but themselves. He told us in April that local authorities had stuffed £500 million down the backs of their sofas. He said in the Select Committee on Education and Skills that head teachers were incompetent for not managing their budgets. His latest excuse was that teachers are being paid too much. When the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and I were at the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers' conference in April, we were told that we were scaremongering, and that that was why schools did not get the budgets that they need.
	Today, we heard not a single word of humility from the Secretary of State about the chaos that has been caused. He was not able to name a single local education authority that has not satisfied his Department about its allocation or passporting of money to schools. At the Local Government Association conference in July, Barnaby Shaw, the Department's school improvement and excellence manager, said:
	"When you try to analyse what went wrong, the fault lies with the DfES."
	That is one of the Secretary of State's senior officials. Does he agree with him? Does he agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, who, at the same conference, accused him of exacerbating the situation with ill-thought-out statements?
	Today's statement is also ill thought out. Will the Secretary of State confirm that not a single teacher or classroom assistant who is made redundant today will be re-employed as a result of it? Will he confirm that no additional resources will be given to schools with deficit budgets that have used all their balances or devolved their capital unless they are part of the recovery plan? Will he confirm that the recovery plan is in fact a loan that schools will have to pay back? Will he agree that when he appeared before the Select Committee on Monday, he let the cat out of the bag by saying that schools with insufficient resources will not be able to implement the work load agreement within the relevant time scale?
	We welcome some aspects of the statement, including the longer-term settlement, the prospect of a two-year pay deal, and guaranteed per-student increases; but that is what the Secretary of State promised for this year. What additional resources has he obtained from the Chancellor in support of the next two-year settlement? If he has no more money, this is a hollow promise. If he has a sealed envelope, money must come from somewhere else to pay for the real increases that he has guaranteed. Who will be the new losers in this settlement? What plans has he actively to model the proposals at a school level? To be fair to the Secretary of State, we are pleased that he is going to bring forward the School Teachers Review Body process and that local authorities will have all the information before them. His ministerial colleagues refused to do that during the passage of the School Standards Bill, even though we proposed amendments that would achieve it. Does the Secretary of State accept that this year's transfer of standards fund money was in reality a sleight of hand by which he removed £350 million? That had a severe impact, especially on newly qualified teachers.
	Finally, will the Secretary of State abandon the ludicrous idea of individually funding 25,000 schools? As we have seen this year, he is not competent to run his own Department, let alone 25,000 schools. When he lounges on the beach somewhere in Europe this summer, he may be reminded of the hundreds of teachers and classroom assistants who are being made redundant and will have to find jobs elsewhere.

Charles Clarke: Perhaps I could visit the hon. Gentleman in Harrogate this summer and lounge on the beach while I consider what to do. On the other hand, I might find that people come up and shout at me, having been inspired by the hon. Gentleman.
	I am delighted by hon. Gentleman's warm welcome for the substance of our proposals, particularly on the two-year deal, the standards fund and the extra resources. It is a shame, however, that he had to hide it under a great shower of rhetoric that did not add up to much.
	I have acknowledged throughout, and continue to do so, that mistakes were made in relation to the shared responsibility of my Department and local government for funding schools. I have said that in this House and in the Select Committee, and I have sought to analyse why and how it happened. It is precisely because we need to rectify those mistakes that I am making this statement. It is important that schools are well managed—that is why recovery plans to deal with deficit budgets and suchlike are necessary. It is not the case that a tap of money is turned on and schools spend, spend, spend. The situation has to be well managed and well directed, and that is what we will do. We are modelling the proposals in detail; I was at pains to point out the various consultations that I intend to have with local government, head teachers and others.
	On the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the funding formula, it is not necessary to withdraw a proposal that I never made.

Joan Ruddock: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which contains much to encourage us. I particularly thank him for the additional money for children's social services, as we had been greatly concerned that that might be badly affected by his ring-fencing. Can he clarify how the baselines will be established? Many schools are adopting deficit budgets, and unless they get back to where they should have been, an increase for 2004–05 will not be sufficient and may lead to redundancies, which we have managed to stave off for the moment.

Charles Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's general support. Having discussed the situation with many of her colleagues in the London borough of Lewisham, I am well aware of the pressures that her local schools have experienced. I want to make two points in response. First, I have been told by many schools, governors and local education authorities that the single most important thing to sort out at this stage is certainty about the future and stability. That is what I sought to offer in the statement.
	Secondly, I acknowledge what my hon. Friend says—we have discussed it outside this Chamber—about schools that have spent from reserves or from devolved formula capital, or where deficit budgets have been set. I also acknowledge that in some cases resolving those issues could be beyond the capacity of individual schools and LEAs. In those few cases, I will be prepared to consider limited transitional support to avoid damage to children's education and consequences such as those that my hon. Friend describes. However, that must be part of a locally agreed recovery plan. The local authority—in her case, Lewisham—and schools must discuss among themselves, then agree with us, a plan that will deal with such problems. That is the responsible approach, and it allows stability for the future.

Andrew Turner: The Secretary of State is welcome to come to the Isle of Wight to lounge on the beaches, where he might meet the 40 or so staff who have lost their jobs as a result of this year's schools funding crisis. He said in his statement: "LEAs, heads and governors will work together through their schools forums to agree the funding baseline to which the guaranteed per pupil increase will be applied." Does that mean that this year's increase might be based not on the actual funding, but on a lower figure?

Charles Clarke: That depends entirely on pupil numbers and the overall situation. I accept that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) said, there are issues involving deficit budgets. We will take those into account in the way that I set out.

Peter Mandelson: In warmly welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, I suggest that he needs not only to ensure that there is a stable and predictable funding system in future, but to provide ample flexibility for individual schools to experiment with new teaching methods and innovative use of resources on their premises. In that context, I commend to him the online learning system that is being pioneered by Manor college of technology in Hartlepool. The point is that without greater freedom and flexibility being permitted for individual schools, such innovative teaching advances are likely to remain restricted in the future.

Charles Clarke: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, which is why I so energetically rebut the suggestion from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman that I am interested in micro-managing schools. The truth is exactly as my right hon. Friend says: not only Manor college in his constituency but a large number of schools in the country are behaving in an innovatory way in an entirely outstanding application, for example, of information and communications technology, with different partnerships outside the school, which is all focused on raising educational standards. That can be done only if there is freedom and flexibility at the school level. That is what this statement is designed to offer.

Peter Luff: As many Worcestershire schools have welcomed the increased capital money made available by the Government to local schools, I am sure that they will welcome aspects of today's statement. They will be concerned, however, that the Government have brought forward no proposals at all to address the growing gap between Worcestershire's funding and the English national funding average, despite teachers being paid on a national pay scale. When will the Government address the iniquity of schools in similar situations in similar local education authorities getting wildly different sums of money, which is forcing counties such as Worcestershire to charge their council tax payers considerably more than the Government think that they need to?

Charles Clarke: I, too, represent a shire county in which the kind of issues that the hon. Gentleman raises are real. We have asked the School Teachers Review Body this year to look at whether there is a case for regional variations and so on, which is part of my remit letter that I published last Friday. To be blunt, the key area in which that is so important is London and the south-east, where there is already a whole system of extra pay to deal with those circumstances. It is a bigger factor there than in some other parts of the country, including Worcestershire. It is important to make an assessment, however, for the reasons that he states.

Glenda Jackson: Could my right hon. Friend help me by giving a little more detail about how the budgets for the following years will be defined? Despite my local authority, Camden, passporting all Government money to our schools, and despite finding an additional £1.8 million from other budgets for education, it is still facing a shortfall of £1.5 million. That is resulting in a loss of teachers and classroom assistants, deficit budgets, of which there have been 14 to date, and capital projects are being lost as well as certain educational programmes. Will he help me by saying what will be the minimum budget, given that there can be no argument that Camden has always passported, and will continue to passport, all Government money, and has always found additional funds for education?

Charles Clarke: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Camden council, which has had substantial discussions with my officials and schools within the borough to address the problems there. As she knows, Camden is relatively well funded, being the seventh highest-funded education authority in Britain, but it has had serious issues that it has been seeking to address in a constructive way. For the reasons that I gave earlier, I am not prepared to put a figure on the amount of money that we are talking about until we know the pay review body settlement in particular, because that will be important. One of the issues this year was that the pay review body recommended, and I then agreed, a significantly greater pay increase in inner London, in boroughs such as Camden, than across the country, for the reasons that were referred to in the question from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). I agreed that but it put greater pressures on the budgets of schools in inner London. That is why I am not prepared to give a figure for next year until we know exactly what the situation will be on teachers' pay.

Sydney Chapman: Whatever the merits of the right hon. Gentleman's statement this afternoon, he seems not to have addressed the real crisis that exists at the moment. That can be no better explained than by looking at what happened in Barnet, where the Government, through the revenue support grant, gave an additional £8.1 million to cover all services, but required the LEA to pass on £14.5 million to the schools, which the local education authority has done, causing a huge hike in the council tax. He has admitted that there have been failures, and that problems exist, and Barnet brought in an independent consultant who totally vindicated the LEA. Will he look at how, this year, he can immediately redress the injustice and help Barnet to cover this deepening crisis?

Charles Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, his parliamentary colleagues representing Barnet have been extremely energetic in making precisely the case that he sets out. I and my colleagues have been ready to meet colleagues from Barnet to discuss the situation, and continue to be ready to discuss it in every way that is appropriate. I remain of the view that the security and certainty that I am offering in this statement is a major means to resolving the issues of funding in the current year, including in schools in Barnet. That is why I commend my proposals to the schools and local education authority in Barnet, as well as more widely.

Bob Russell: Does the Secretary of State recall his visit last month to Colchester when, as the Evening Gazette graphically reported, large sums of money were pledged? In particular, will he give a guarantee today that those schools that draw a large number of children from the Army estates will receive additional funding for the turbulence factor, which he led all those head teachers whom he met to believe would be forthcoming? Given his statement today, will he guarantee that the money for state schools that cater for service children will be provided?

Charles Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I had a constructive meeting with the heads of the schools around the Army base in Colchester to discuss precisely the issues that he describes. In short, the problem is that when garrisons move, and therefore families move, that can cause instability in the numbers in a particular school. This statement does not address that point because it is not about pupil numbers. The commitment that I gave to those head teachers—I give him the assurance that I continue to give—is that we are addressing the 250 schools altogether in the country that have that problem as garrisons move around, and we are discussing with the Ministry of Defence and others how we can give such schools the kind of stability that they seek.

Jim Cousins: I straightforwardly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. He is absolutely right that there is too much brokerage as the money finds its way to schools. He is also right that the single most important cause of the difficulties that schools face is the cut in the standards fund, which was itself suggested by local government. He is right to reverse that, and I congratulate him on charming £400 million extra out of Prudence to support the reintroduction of the standards fund. Will he ensure, however, that the recovery plans, the changes in local formulae for distributing money to schools and the future distribution of the standards fund are all properly consulted on locally in good time, so that everyone can see exactly what is going on and that there is fairness not favours?

Charles Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's warm remarks, and I can give him the assurance that he seeks that the result of this will be to give clarity to every school about what the funding regime is. One of the relatively few silver linings that emerged from the grey cloud of funding this year was a much closer relationship in most parts of the country between the local education authority and the schools within that area, and a more serious debate about where resources were really being allocated. I believe that my statement today will accelerate that process.

David Amess: On average, in Southend, secondary schools have faced a funding shortage of £400,000 and primary schools of £50,000. In the light of the Secretary of State's statement today, will his officials kindly liaise urgently with officials in Southend to see whether the redundancy notices that were planned should not be sent out, preferably before the meeting with the Minister for School Standards on 9 September?

Charles Clarke: I am happy to confirm that my officials would be very happy to meet the officials of the local education authority to discuss those points.

Andy Reed: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the useful meeting that Leicestershire MPs had with him earlier this week. Will he use the flexibility that is possible in what he said today to address the situation that was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), which is the gap in funding between the best and worst funded local education authorities. I know that he was able to allow some flexibility this year, with an additional £835,000 for the county when a shortfall was highlighted. Will he use that in his talks with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to look again at the area cost adjustment to help reduce the enormous gap that has opened up? I very much welcome the other steps that he is taking in today's statement.

Charles Clarke: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. We had a very useful discussion with him and his colleagues from Leicestershire earlier this week, and I can confirm that I and my colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will continue to discuss these matters.

David Rendel: The Secretary of State said in an earlier answer that mistakes had been made. When we have a fiasco like this before us on the Public Accounts Committee, Members from all parties often put to the permanent secretary the question that I would now like to put to the Secretary of State. How many Ministers or civil servants have lost their jobs as a result of this fiasco?

Charles Clarke: None, and I do not intend that any should.

Tony Lloyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his openness at this early stage; we are now giving some clarity to the schools system. I remind him that the importance of the standards fund—as I know he recognises—was that it precisely targeted the most disadvantaged pupils in the most disadvantaged communities, and that it undid some of the great damage done by the previous Conservative Government. Will he make it clear how far we are able to tell such schools that next year they will have budgets that allow them to operate in the same way as last year?

Charles Clarke: I think that we can be sure that schools can operate in that way. In so saying, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done with schools in central Manchester to improve the situation there. It was the evidence that he and his colleagues brought to me about the impact of the reductions in the standards fund on some of his schools, in the most challenging circumstances, that convinced me that the course of action that I am announcing today—to reverse the proposed cuts in the standards fund—is necessary to give the kind of assurance that he seeks.

Julian Lewis: Six long years after the Prime Minister promised to make education his top three priorities, can the Secretary of State look you in the eye and tell the House that that promise has been fulfilled—or even, Mr. Speaker, look you in the eye and tell the House that that promise has been fulfilled?

Charles Clarke: Yes I can, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons that I have set out in the statement in terms of increased resources, teachers, classroom assistants and teachers' pay, and of better results and outcomes. The contrast with the Conservative years of the past could not be greater.

Brian Iddon: I note that my right hon. Friend's statement refers to increased funding for sixth formers in sixth forms attached to maintained schools. I do not have such a sixth form in my constituency, but I have a sixth-form college. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the differential funding between pupils in sixth-form colleges and those to which I have already referred will be levelled out as soon as possible?

Charles Clarke: It is true that the essence of this statement has been about the funding of schools, rather than of colleges, whether sixth-form colleges, tertiary colleges or general further education colleges. I can confirm, however, that it is the Government's intention directly to reduce the gaps in funding that exist between schools and colleges when educating sixth formers. That remains one of our priorities.

David Tredinnick: I thank the Secretary of State for receiving a cross-party delegation of Members from Leicestershire on Tuesday to discuss the worst crisis that we have ever had in education in the county. Is it not a fact that 40 to 50 per cent. of our schools now run deficit budgets, and that the Secretary of State is directly responsible for that? Will he tell the House whether the limited transitional resources to which he has referred will be applied to Leicestershire in the short term? Although he says that he is not going to micro-manage schools' budgets, is it not a fact that he is thinking of directing LEAs on how and where they should spend the money in their budgets?

Charles Clarke: The principal direction that I am offering is that there should be a minimum increase per pupil for every school. I think that most people in the House will welcome that direction and say that it offers the kind of stability that it would have been good to have had in the past. On the hon. Gentleman's more general point, I think that people sometimes have very short memories. In his own constituency in Leicestershire, there are now more teachers, better-paid teachers, better results, and more classroom assistants. The Government whom he supported did nothing for those people.

Tony McWalter: My right hon. Friend will be aware, following my meeting with the Minister for Children, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), that Hemel Hempstead is facing particular problems at the moment because of the huge cut in courses available at the local further education college. Schools in the area will need a considerable increase in their facilities to compensate for this. Will my right hon. Friend give me the assurance that, when schools face pressures of this kind, his funding arrangements will be adequate?

Charles Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In fact, one of the specific mandates of the learning and skills councils is to address the relationship in 16-plus education between schools, sixth-form colleges, general colleges and so on, in a way that will address the issue that my hon. Friend has raised.

Annette Brooke: Assuming that LEAs passport funds as required, how will today's proposals help schools in the lowest-funded authorities such as Poole and Dorset? Guaranteed percentage increases on a low base will not be enough to stave off crises in the future.

Charles Clarke: There will be enough to achieve a guaranteed per pupil increase for every school in Poole. I know that there have been problems in Poole, and a delegation has met my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards to discuss them. The decisions that I have been able to announce today on the standards fund will assist schools in Poole and also in other parts of the country.

David Chaytor: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I remind him that schools in my constituency and in many other metropolitan districts in the north of England suffered deficit budgets, year on year, for every year of the old Tory funding formula. Is it not the case that the introduction of a floor for the increase in spending for each individual school will impact on the pace at which the floors and ceilings for each local authority's spending can be phased out? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how long it will now take to phase out those floors and ceilings?

Charles Clarke: I cannot give my hon. Friend that information until we have the figures later in the year. I can, however, confirm that his central point is correct. That is why I have worked so hard to ensure that I could make this statement today on the extra money for the standards fund, so that there would not be such an impact on the floors and ceilings as there would otherwise have been, thus ensuring that schools in his constituency and others will be able to benefit to the greatest possible extent. I shall, however, give him the detailed answer that he wants when we publish the figures based on the School Teachers Review Body report.

Mark Francois: The Secretary of State will be aware that this year Essex had the toughest grant settlement of any county in England. Bearing that in mind, this seems to be a complex statement, and I suspect that the devil will probably be in the detail. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that whatever guarantees he is offering will be fully funded by central Government, so that no unfair burden is placed on local council tax payers to finance them?

Charles Clarke: I can give that assurance. I have visited Essex, as the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) said, on a couple of occasions. My journey from Norwich to London takes me through Essex, and, rather than just looking from a distance, I prefer to engage with the populace and to discuss these things with them. The impact of the funding formula was variable across schools, and some schools in Essex did very well out of it. My candid advice to the Conservative county council and its leader, who sits in the other place, is to make less political capital out of this issue and to focus more closely on the specific situation in the schools.

Roger Casale: Thanks to the excellent work of teachers and head teachers in my constituency, many of those parents who are fortunate enough to be able to choose are now entrusting the education of their children to state schools rather than paying to have them educated privately. If we are to continue to accommodate and encourage this increase in demand, should we not allow the oversubscribed schools such as the Hollymount and Wimbledon Chase primary schools to expand? Should we not also ensure that schools such as Pelham and Dundonald primary schools and Raynes Park high school are no longer faced with the kind of budgetary pressures that they have faced this year? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to work with me, the schools and the local authority to tackle these problems and to get to the bottom of why they have arisen, so that we can ensure that the improvements that are being made can be built on in the coming years?

Charles Clarke: I give those assurances, and will add to them. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), is working hard through the London Challenge precisely to deal with the problem of over-subscribed schools and to get more flexibility in these areas. That is being done for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) states, and we will continue that work.

Richard Bacon: During the Secretary of State's sojourn from the Palace of Westminster to Norwich, South, he passes through my constituency, and we were pleased to see him engaging with the populace at Loddon just the other day. Does he accept that teachers and classroom assistants in my constituency and elsewhere in Norfolk are losing their jobs? Does he also accept that it is just possible that the very complexity of the educational finance system may be part of the problem? Will he at least consider a pilot in which the money available from the state that is spent on education is given directly to parents to spend as they choose?

Charles Clarke: I agree with the hon. Gentleman from my neighbouring constituency that the system is complex and difficult, and that it is necessary to get more clarity into it. I am not prepared to contemplate a pilot such as he described at the moment, but I suggest that he talks to his political colleagues on Norfolk county council to see whether they would consider such a step in his constituency.

Michael Jabez Foster: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, today in particular, because it helps us for the summer and perhaps messes up the Liberal Democrats' summer campaign. That apart, will he define what he means by sufficient central Government grant for next year? My authority had a £14 million passport figure, but only a £10 million increase this year. Does it mean that any passported sum will be fully funded?

Charles Clarke: The short answer to that question is yes, but we will deal with the context and quantums later this year. I acknowledge that Brighton and Hove council has had to address a number of difficulties, and my hon. Friend has raised those with me. We will endeavour to deal with them in those circumstances.

Andrew Lansley: On the Secretary of State's stately progress from Norfolk to London, perhaps he would like to stop and visit schools in my constituency, which are running deficit budgets because they want to retain teachers, not make them redundant. He talks about a guaranteed per pupil increase for next year. Does he accept that for those schools the key concern is that it reflects not only the unavoidable additional costs in 2004–05 compared with 2003–04, but meets some of the unavoidable costs that arose in this financial year that were not covered in the settlement available to Cambridgeshire? Although Cambridgeshire passported 113 per cent. of its increase in formula, it did not make up the disparity that many schools experienced.

Charles Clarke: In answer to previous questions, I have dealt in some detail with precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman raises, and I do not have anything further to add. If I am invited to visit his constituency, of course I will be delighted to do so.

Oona King: I apologise for being a few minutes late for my right hon. Friend's statement, but I was receiving a petition from the Tower Hamlets parents association signed by hundreds of residents. Like me, they are desperately concerned about the £5.5 million funding shortfall for education in Tower Hamlets. I thank the Secretary of State for seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) and me about this problem. I particularly welcome his announcements on standards funds. What assurance can he give parents, teachers, governors and local government that schools that set a deficit budget as a result of the reduction in standards funds last year—not this year, but the 2003–04 financial year—and the increase in teachers' pay will get the additional funding they need to prevent redundancies and to set a balanced budget?

Charles Clarke: I am aware of the issues in my hon. Friend's constituency, and I am grateful for her acknowledgement that we had a useful meeting to discuss these questions. I do not think that there is anything I can add on deficit budgets for this year, but I shall certainly take her remarks fully into account.

Mark Hoban: Last year, Hampshire county council received one of the lowest settlements of any local education authority, and that has contributed to some of the funding problems in local schools. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the relative shift in funding will continue next year? If so, does he recognise that that will put more pressure on local schools?

Charles Clarke: I think that I have clarified exactly what the Government propose to do for Hampshire schools and those elsewhere in the country. Like others who have contributed to this discussion, I am a Member of Parliament for a shire county, and I acknowledge that serious issues need to be addressed. My statement offers stability to create conditions in which they can be addressed.

David Taylor: As I mentioned to the Secretary of State when he carefully and courteously received a cross-party delegation of Leicestershire MPs on Tuesday, the 50 schools in north-west Leicestershire have had a difficult time as a result of this settlement, not least because of the impact of standards fund changes. Will he reassure the House that the extra £400 million per year that he is injecting into that mechanism starting next year will not be top sliced from some other educational pot, and is new money? Does he agree that the corollary to the national distribution formula reflecting economic and social need should be that the distribution mechanism within LEAs reflects the needs of individual school catchment areas?

Charles Clarke: I can give the assurance that the extra resources that I have announced today will be targeted on the specific needs of schools. We have made that announcement to create the stability that we are seeking.

Nick Gibb: The statement is welcome, particularly the average per pupil guarantee and the Secretary of State's decision to reverse next year's reductions in the school standards fund. I am also grateful to the Minister for School Standards for meeting a delegation of heads from Bognor Regis to discuss their funding problems. It seems that this year's problems arose from the complexity of the funding arrangements. Will the Secretary of State model these changes and the funding for each authority, as suggested by the director of education in West Sussex, so that we can be absolutely sure that this year's problems will not recur next year?

Charles Clarke: The reason I sought Mr. Speaker's permission to make a statement today was to set out the structure and architecture of the arrangements that we will carry through. I shall announce the money when we know the result of the teachers pay review body and other matters. We will use the time between now and then to work with LEAs and schools to model the detailed impact of the changes, so that when we come to make the money announcement in the autumn it reflects the real situation and is properly prepared.

Geraint Davies: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. He will know that an extra 549 teachers and teaching assistants have been appointed in Croydon since 1997, but this year we face particular difficulties. Will the transitional funding applied in exceptional circumstances for deficit funding come from his Department or from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister? How confident is he in his dialogue with the Deputy Prime Minister that enough money will be available to fund the forecasts for next year, alongside provision for other vital services, without a large increase in council tax? Will the money also fund people with special educational needs, so that they have the services that they deserve?

Charles Clarke: I have had good discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister and with other Departments about the best way of achieving the funding. We have reached agreement, which is why I am able to make this announcement.

John Pugh: What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Treasury prior to this announcement about bypassing local authorities and funding schools from his own Department, and what was the upshot of those discussions?

Charles Clarke: There have been substantial discussions between Ministers and officials in my Department with the Treasury. I explained the upshot of those discussions in my statement.

Personal Statement

Clive Betts: I wish to make a personal statement with regard to a report about my conduct by the Standards and Privileges Committee. This was the first time that an MP has referred allegations about his own conduct to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I am grateful to the Standards and Privileges Committee for authorising the Parliamentary Commissioner to investigate. I fully co-operated with the Parliamentary Commissioner's investigations.
	The Parliamentary Commissioner concluded that there had been no misuse of public funds by me, and I had not used my position as an MP in any way to influence a visa decision. I wish to add that at no time did I mislead or seek to mislead a Customs official. The Standards and Privileges Committee concluded that I had made two errors of judgment. The Committee determined that the first of those required no further action, and that the second was made when I was under enormous personal pressure.
	I have unreservedly apologised to the Committee, and now do so to the House, in respect of these matters. I acknowledge the full recommendations of the Committee, which I accept.
	Finally, I am grateful for the tremendous support that I have received throughout recent months from family, friends, parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the House, local party members and constituents.

Point of Order

Henry Bellingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry issued a written statement on community pharmacies which was detailed and fairly comprehensive. At the same time, the Secretary of State for Health published a document entitled "A Vision for Pharmacy in the New NHS".
	As you will know, Mr. Speaker—as you are often here in the late evenings—many Members hand in petitions signed by hundreds of thousands of constituents throughout the country supporting community pharmacies and small businesses. Given the amount of public concern, and given that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that a statement would be made before the House rose, surely the right hon. Lady owes it to the House to make an oral statement enabling us to question her on what are very technical and complicated matters. What can you do, Mr. Speaker, to urge and persuade Ministers to give us such opportunities in future?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to take on the responsibilities of a Back Bencher. The matter could easily be raised today during the Adjournment debates that are about to take place. That would enable the hon. Gentleman to register his complaint.

BILLS PRESENTED

Energy Efficiency

Mr. David Chaytor, supported by Mr. Martin O'Neill, Mr. John Horam, Dr. Ian Gibson, Dr. Alan Whitehead, Alan Simpson, Brian White and Mr. David Drew, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to issue new Building Regulations in relation to the installation of boilers in domestic premises; to make provision for the continuation of the energy efficiency commitment in relation to domestic premises; to require the Secretary of State to consult on extending that provision to non-domestic premises; to require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consult on reducing value added tax on energy saving materials; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed. [Bill 153].

Care Homes (Tenancy)

Mr. Paul Burstow presented a Bill to establish the tenancy rights of care home residents; to provide for continuity of care where a care home is closed; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed. [Bill 154].

Adjournment (Summer)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker.]

Alice Mahon: I want to raise two important issues. The first relates to sleep apnoea and road safety.
	Last year I helped to organise a working group to examine the problems of sleep disorder and its impact on road accidents. I also tabled an early-day motion, which was signed by 126 Members of Parliament. The motion recognised that a significant proportion of all road accidents resulting in death or serious injury were caused by sleepiness, and that that led to misery. As well as noting the obvious human misery caused by fatal road accidents, however, we should note that a fatal accident costs about £1 million, given the cost of emergency services and the cost of any subsequent inquiry.
	I am raising this issue in an attempt to secure more Government recognition of sleep disorders and their impact on society, especially in relation to road accidents. It is currently estimated that sleep disorders affect approximately 770,000 people in the United Kingdom, but despite the number of sufferers there is no mention of sleep disorders in the national health service plan or other Government health guidelines—notwithstanding research showing that treatment is cost-effective, and a recent estimate by sleep experts that untreatable sleep disorders are costing the NHS £432 million a year.
	Mary Williams, chief executive of Brake, the road safety charity, issued a statement today saying
	"It's a horrific thought that thousands of people setting off on long holiday drives could be unwittingly putting their families at risk because of a sleep disorder. Tragically, people are already dying on our roads because sleep disorders lead drivers to doze off at the wheel. These deaths are preventable and it is high time that"
	there was some
	"action to educate drivers about sleep disorders and give doctors the resources they need to treat them."
	The most common disorder is obstructive sleep apnoea, in which obstruction of the airway during sleep can lead to excessive daytime tiredness. Many sufferers remain undiagnosed because they assume that they are suffering from exhaustion rather than a specific, treatable condition. Dr. Melissa Hack of the Newport Sleep Centre says
	"Sleep disorders have a huge impact on the quality of life of the sufferer. Greater attention must be paid to sleep related disorders which can be identified and treated".
	This is an important issue, which has been ignored. I have tied it in with road safety becauseof recent research published in a report called "Dead Tired". It concluded that sleep caused 20 per cent. of accidents on our motorways. I urge the Government to take the problem seriously; I will certainly raise it again when we reassemble in the autumn.
	I want to say a quick word about Iraq as well. I think that our Government are digging themselves deeper and deeper into the mire. The Untied States has finally been forced to admit what the rest of us already knew: that the war is ongoing, and is costing a fortune. Last night we witnessed an extraordinary scene—American troops in Iraq appearing on television to call for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. As for the authority of the British Government, we seem to be shifting from farce to tragedy. As the weapons of mass destruction issue unravels, it looks increasingly likely that the case against Iraq was exaggerated by both the United States and our own Government.
	On the matter of uranium from Niger, for example, President Bush and the Prime Minister are not even singing from the same hymn sheet. Let me remind Members of events. At the end of February 2002, former US ambassador Joseph Wilson went to Niger, at the behest of his Government, to investigate claims that uranium was being sold to Iraq. According to his own recently published account, he found that documents purporting to disclose that were forgeries, and the US embassy staff on the ground certainly agreed with him. According to his account, he told the American authorities that several times, but inexplicably his reports seem to have been ignored.
	Six months later, in September last year, our Prime Minister presented his first dossier, which contained the claim that Saddam Hussein was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger. This week the Foreign Secretary informed the House that it was not until mid-February this year, a full 12 months later, that British Ministers were apprised of Mr. Wilson's findings. The Foreign Secretary has also assured us in writing—placing a letter in the House of Commons Library—that
	"although the CIA told the British government about their reservations concerning this element of the September dossier, UK officials were confident that the dossier's statement was based on reliable intelligence which the government had not shared with the USA."
	I have quoted from the Foreign Secretary's letter, because I think it makes the case for me.
	Meanwhile, inconveniently—the timing was unfortunate to say the least—the Prime Minister was appearing before the Liaison Committee to assure its members that the dossiers were based on well-founded intelligence. Across the water, the White House was informing the American public that the reference in President Bush's state of the Union speech on 28 January this year had been wrong—a mistake that the CIA has subsequently "coughed up" to. Contrary to that, in a new development this weekend, Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld insisted on American television that the President had done nothing wrong: he had simply stated what the British Government had told him. The British Government had told him that Saddam Hussein was attempting to procure uranium from Niger, and therefore his statement was technically correct.
	It seems to me that many lives—those of thousands of Iraqi families, as well as the families of dead and injured British and American soldiers—have been shattered on the basis of technicalities such as this. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, President Bush has executed a further about-face. In direct contradiction to what his aides have been saying, he now stands by the "damn good" intelligence that he received.
	Finally—and let us hope that it is final—the British Government's assertion that the dossier's claims about Niger uranium were based on other reliable intelligence has now been thrown into question. According to Reuters, a western diplomat close to the International Atomic Energy Agency insists that the intelligence on which the UK says it relied came from the same group of faked documents that Joseph Wilson discredited as long ago as February 2002.
	The Government owe Parliament and the British public an urgent answer to the following questions. First, why were the Government not informed about the forged documents until a year after Joseph Wilson's report? After all, we are the Americans' closest allies. Secondly, when did the British intelligence services get wind of those forgeries? Thirdly, what other evidence exists to back up the claim that Iraq was attempting to acquire uranium from Niger, and is the source in question free from the taint of forgery? Fourthly, is it true, as The Independent claims today, that the Government are refusing to hand over this evidence to the International Atomic Energy Agency?
	By the Foreign Affairs Committee's own admission, it had insufficient access to sources and personnel in order to judge whether the intelligence was faulty or misinterpreted. If the Government accept the right of Parliament to question the evidence of weapons of mass destruction, as the Foreign Secretary did in his statement yesterday, why will the Prime Minister not take the next step and set up an independent judicial inquiry? These are very important matters, which we should look at again soon and urgently.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: May I remind all Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches?

Michael Trend: I want to raise an issue that is of importance to my constituents and I and to the House as a whole. In essence, I want to talk about the Prime Minister's forthcoming visit to China and the opportunity that it presents, within the context of the war against terrorism, to give voice to the non-violent aspirations of the long-suffering people of Tibet. I hope that he will take the opportunity in the days ahead to carry with him the hopes of the Tibetans and of their countless friends throughout the world, especially in this House. He will know of the important work done by the all-party group on Tibet under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). He will also be familiar with early-day motion 834, which raises current causes for deep concern, especially the recent execution of Lobsang Dhondup and the two-year suspended death sentence imposed on the respected Buddhist leader, Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche. In particular, I ask that those on the Government Front Bench convey to the Prime Minister our feeling that he should impress on the Chinese Government the need to make meaningful progress in the current talks between the Tibetans and the Chinese, and to press the Chinese Government to enter into proper negotiations with the Tibetan Government in exile, without stipulating impossible preconditions.
	The Prime Minister is going on a world tour—to the USA, Japan, South Korea, China and Hong Kong—and I wish him well; however, I want to concentrate on China. We as a country have great experience in dealing with China over the years, particularly during the years of negotiation on Hong Kong. There is new leadership in China and the United Kingdom wants to be China's European best friend. Business men are going with the Prime Minister, which is good, but we have to deal with China with our eyes wide open.
	Tibet has been occupied for 53 years now. The Government are very knowledgeable on United Nations resolutions, a number of which cover Tibet. They deal with the human rights abuses; the transfer of the population on a massive scale; the destruction of whole communities, monasteries and cultural buildings; the degradation of the environment; and the assault on the freedoms of the nomadic way life. International pressure can, and has, made a difference.
	The all-party group on Tibet was fortunate to be visited recently by Ngawang Sangdrol, a 23-year old young woman from Tibet whose story illustrates what peaceful protest means there. For demonstrating with a small group of young nuns when she was 13, and for calling for Tibetan independence, she was imprisoned for two years. Because she would not recant and sang songs honouring the Dalai Lama, she was subjected to brutal punishments and stripped of her civil rights. She has been released after 11 years, only though the efforts of Amnesty International and many others, including our colleagues here, particularly the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing). Still deprived of her civil rights, Ngawang Sangdrol was allowed to leave Tibet for medical treatment on the condition that she sign an undertaking not to speak of her treatment. That success is due in large part to the fact that people all over the world hung on to her name. Now, we can see her face to face.
	Ngawang Sangdrol is one of hundreds of political detainees—of young people born under the Chinese occupation of Tibet who have steadfastly followed the Dalai Lama's non-violent approach. It would surely be far easier for many of them to follow the more familiar path of the dispossessed and aggrieved of today's world—to meet violence with violence—but they do not. The difference for the Tibetans is the Dalai Lama: a man of enormous authority to his people, and of absolute peace to the world. He is a firm believer in non-violence, and states:
	"We are freedom fighters unique in our peaceful approach to liberation . . . Should this experiment prove successful, it could have a revolutionary effect on future struggles for freedom".
	Let me set that in a context that I hope the House can appreciate and will understand. Our country is acutely aware of the threat of terrorism, both internally and internationally. I have supported the Government in their actions in recent months, and I believe that we are right to protect our own interests against organised terrorism. But I also recognise—I know that the Government do, too—that, currently, much in the world situation is feeding the recruitment of terrorists. This, uniquely, is not the situation with the people of Tibet. Where others speak the language of war and practise it, the Dalai Lama speaks only the language of peace and seeks a non-violent resolution of his people's desperate plight. Is that not what we ask all world leaders to do, and should we not seek to help those few—those very few—who actually do it?
	UK Governments past and present have shown the value of innovative non-violent approaches in Northern Ireland. The UK speaks with first-hand experience of terrorism and the path to resolution—so, in our own sphere, we believe that there is another way. It surely follows that we should be prepared to demonstrate this to the world at large, and to say that those who follow peaceful advocacy of their cause can, and should, gain an advantage. Their grievances should be heard, and resolutions should be found to their legitimate concerns; otherwise, we leave them no alternative but violence and terrorism.
	A very important moment came in September 2002, with re-establishment of direct contact between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government. That was a very brave decision on the part of the Dalai Lama. No political leader since Gandhi has so steadfastly followed the path of non-violence, and none has had their determination to remain non-violent put to such a tough test as the Tibetans, on whom the Chinese have inflicted that test. The Dalai Lama has been abused and vilified by the Chinese authorities as if he were an armed terrorist. Meanwhile, foreign Governments, various world bodies and countless individuals have heaped much praise on the Dalai Lama for his peaceful approach. But however much praise has been given to the Dalai Lama and to the Tibetan people, in practical terms it has been almost meaningless. Tibetans could easily point to numerous examples of violence achieving the desired results.
	The Dalai Lama's representatives have paid two visits to Beijing in the past 12 months, but there is no sign yet that the Chinese Government are genuinely willing to work toward real negotiations. Those are still discussions about discussions, and at the moment they appear to be going nowhere. Some believe that the Chinese Government's motive is to string out these talks to curb the Dalai Lama from speaking in public at all. The Chinese have already secured a tight self-restriction on campaigning by the Tibetan world diaspora and Tibet's friends—this in order to demonstrate the Tibetan commitment to dialogue. It is surely in both the international community's and China's interests to show that a non-violent approach warrants a civilised response and practical outcomes.
	During his forthcoming visit to China, the Prime Minister can play a significant role in convincing the Chinese that the current talks have to be for real, that they are in their interests and will be to their credit. He speaks with the authority of one who has been personally involved in handling attempts to resolve a terrorist approach to nationalist aspirations. Our Government's policy is to recognise China's special relationship with Tibet on the basis that Tibet enjoys genuine autonomy. This, too, is the policy of the Dalai Lama. The Prime Minster has to underline the fact that the Dalai Lama has made a major concession by not pressing for the independence demanded by many of his people.
	As the deputy Leader of the House will know, Chinese diplomacy on such issues is aggressive, and to have any impact at all a similarly robust approach is needed. Indeed, such an approach is also respected, as we know from the example of Hong Kong. For both historical and current reasons, we owe a moral obligation to the Tibetan people and to the Dalai Lama. In the current world context, it is in our interest to give them our support, and to show the Chinese that that is also in their interests.
	The opening of dialogue can reflect only creditably on China, but it has to be a genuine dialogue. It must be dialogue that is not made impossible by Chinese pre-conditions, such as demanding that the Dalai Lama should subscribe to statements, knowing that he is in no position to do so.
	In summary, I ask the Government to encourage the Prime Minister to urge the Chinese leadership seriously to discuss the issue of Tibet by entering into a proper dialogue with the Dalai Lama or his representatives. This needs to be done against the background of mutual understanding and trust. The Dalai Lama is offering that to the Chinese and they should respond in like manner.
	Clearly the Chinese Government are not yet serious, so we should implore the Prime Minister to press China's leaders to understand the opportunity that is presented by the Tibetan leader. This would be in the best interests not only of the Tibetans and the Chinese, but of humanity as a whole. Against the background of the international war against terrorism, there should be a global message that non-violent protest against gross violations of basic human rights deserves our support and should be helped to succeed.

Mike Hall: I wish to raise three issues in the 10 minutes available to me, the first of which is transport. At Transport questions this week, I raised with Ministers the reduction of services at Hartford station in my constituency. I now want to elaborate on the problems that we are experiencing there.
	In 1988, British Rail issued a press notice that described Hartford station. It stated:
	"Located at the heart of Mid-Cheshire . . . ideally situated to provide a fast rail service to various parts of the country and is quickly becoming the recognised centre of convenient rail travel in the Vale Royal area. Since electrification of the West Coast Main Line in 1966, Hartford's role has steadily increased and from May 16th 1988 the service has been vastly improved, with over 20 InterCity trains calling at the station in addition to a further 10 extra holiday trains on Saturdays during the summer. The regular hourly service of local trains throughout the day links Hartford with all stations on the Crewe-Liverpool line."
	The notice described how the station served not only Hartford, but Northwich, Winsford, Middlewich, Knutsford and a wider area. It had 100 free car parking spaces, which recently had been extended. The press release explained a number of other services that went through Hartford. In 1988, Hartford was becoming a busy station.
	Privatisation stopped all that. In 2001, Virgin Rail ended the west coast main line service that stopped at Hartford. The Virgin Cross Country services that used Hartford were stopped in 2002. Now, the Strategic Rail Authority has confirmed that the Liverpool to Birmingham service will no longer stop at Hartford, although it may well stop at peak periods.
	What is most striking about this are the reasons given for the diminution of services at Hartford. A letter from the Strategic Rail Authority stated:
	"It may help if I set out the overall context in which the timetable changes are being made. Since last September the timetable has not worked satisfactorily. This is borne out by our performance statistics, which show that the performance of many operators is still below par. For instance, in the last quarter of last year, punctuality on Virgin Cross County fell by 47.6 per cent. It was clear that, in the interests of passengers, a new approach was needed."
	The letter then mitigates the position, saying:
	"The section of the West Coast Main Line between Crewe and Weaver Junction is double-track only, which creates a 'pinch point' with a lot of pressure on available capacity. For this reason a number of Hartford stops will be removed".
	I find it hard to bring together what British Rail was able to do in 1988 with what the SRA is telling us now. I want more trains to stop at Hartford station to encourage people to leave their cars at home and use public transport.
	Virgin Rail says that it has finished the Hartford stops, but that passengers can get a free train from Hartford to Crewe and then the intercity line from Crewe to London. However, the first train to leave Hartford will not get business men or women to Crewe in time to catch a train to be in London for 9 o'clock. They have a choice; they can either drive their cars to Manchester airport and fly or get on the M6 and drive. I am looking to Ministers and the Department for Transport to see what they can do to improve the services that use this excellent station in my constituency, and I look forward to that happening.
	On a related issue, Cheshire county council has decided, in its wisdom, to cut £250,000 from school bus services. Three services serve my constituency, all of which are threatened. The Weaver to Helsby service takes a large number of pupils on a tortuous journey through my constituency to an excellent school. If that service is removed, the parents of those children will have a choice: they can take the children in the car or they can put them in a taxi, as it is far too far to walk. That is an ill-thought-out proposal.
	The proposal to remove the services to Aston primary school in the north of my constituency is equally poor. The school is rural and the narrow roads that service it are not fit for children to walk along. Cheshire county council says that it wants children to get in their parents' cars to go to school, or to make a dangerous journey. That is not acceptable.
	The third transport issue that I want to raise relates to the Competition Act 1998. Two bus companies serve the northern part of my constituency, Arriva and First North Western. On one route, from Helsby to Chester, one could until recently interchange tickets on that route. The inter-availability of tickets has been removed because of the transport companies' fear that they will fall foul of the Competition Act, because both companies charge the same price for the journey. That scheme has been in existence for about 16 years, from when the route was split between the two.
	The scheme does not threaten competition but it serves my community well and has done so for many years. Because of the threat that the companies may be acting in contravention of the Competition Act, they have had to remove the inter-availability of tickets. I want common sense on the issue, rather than the red tape that is bringing about another diminution of transport services in my constituency.
	The second issue concerns Cloughwood, a residential special school for boys with emotional and behavioural difficulties. I have been associated with the school for about 15 years. When I worked in special education, I visited the school, and I have kept a close association with it since becoming a Member of Parliament. It is the premier residential EBD school in the country. Its last Ofsted report said that it was an excellent school; Ofsted could find nothing to criticise in the school.
	For boys aged from about eight to 11 who have failed everywhere else in the education system, the school provides a real opportunity to succeed. They do well in GCSE examinations; the school's league table position is there for all to see. The school is represented nationally in trampolining competitions, and the art work in the school is fantastic; the school has a charter mark for art. It is a first-class school, but it is under threat because Cheshire county council, short-sightedly, wants to save some money.
	Since September last year, the council has reduced the number of admissions to the school and now says that there are surplus places. It wants to change the residential nature of the school into a mixed residential and day-care school. Anybody who has worked in special education will know that that mix does not work. The only way that one can succeed with boys presenting such problems at 10 or 11 is to have them 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It has to be done that way and I am appalled that Cheshire county council has made the decision without properly consulting. I want to give notice that I shall oppose the move by the county council as vigorously as I can.
	The third local issue concerns Halton hospital in my constituency. On 1 July this year, the clinical director at North Cheshire Hospitals Trust unilaterally, without consultation and without following due process, decided to close two intensive care beds in the hospital. He did so on the pretext that he did not have enough anaesthetic cover for the two hospital sites. Nothing has changed, as far as I can see, in the last two months.
	Now, anybody in Halton hospital who needs intensive care must be moved through Widnes to Whiston, or through the southern part of Runcorn to Warrington general hospital. That is a diminution of service at Halton general hospital to which I am totally and utterly opposed. Efforts to get the clinical director to change his mind have so far not succeeded. However, I shall be looking to the North Cheshire Hospitals Trust and the Cheshire and Merseyside strategic health authority to come forward with a plan that will reinstate those intensive care beds to a hospital that serves my constituency well.
	I am grateful for the House's attention to these matters.

Peter Viggers: As the House knows, two issues are so important to my constituency that I have promised my constituents that I will raise them at every practical opportunity on the Floor of the House. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that they are the future of the royal hospital Haslar, and the risk that 400 young men may be accommodated on the Daedalus site in the inner Solent.
	The background to the Haslar hospital problem is that the Government decided in 1997–98 to investigate the clear deficiencies, particularly in respect of senior consultants, in the Defence Medical Services. Those deficiencies were well known for some time, and a committee comprising no medically trained staff decided that the way ahead was to build a new centre of medical excellence—along the lines, they hoped, of Guy's hospital in London or the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford—and to close the only remaining military hospital in the United Kingdom, the royal hospital Haslar in my constituency.
	When they pressed ahead with the plan, they found that, apart from Birmingham, there were no takers for the new centre of medical excellence. I have to say that it is with some considerable reluctance that medical staff are now being moved to Birmingham as the plan proceeds. I have met all the senior people involved and I know that they are capable. They are not medical but military people; if they had been tasked to take Basra, no doubt they would have taken it. However, they were tasked to close Haslar hospital and to move defence medicine to Birmingham: they are getting on with it efficiently.
	The question for the future is what will happen to defence medicine and to the royal hospital Haslar? Defence medicine is not thriving at the moment in the key faculties of general medicine, general surgery and orthopaedic surgery and there are dramatic shortages of anaesthetists. There are only 23 anaesthetists out of an establishment of 120, and only 18 general surgeons out of an establishment of 44. Clearly, things are not going well in the field of defence medicine.
	Of course we must all wish the Ministry of Defence well and hope that it is successful in its innovative plans to increase pay and retention payments in an attempt to ensure that doctors who join the Army, Navy and Air Force actually remain there. The problem is not recruitment—people are willing to enter the armed forces and be paid for their training—but retention. It often seems more attractive for doctors to move outside the services once they have received the qualifications that they want. We wish the Ministry of Defence well in the task of retaining doctors, nurses and other staff. I for one am convinced that, if Haslar hospital were retained as the centre of esprit de corps of the Defence Medical Services, it would have a significant effect on retaining medical staff.
	I move on to the civilian side, because the Haslar hospital has served the civilian population, as well as the Army, Navy and Air Force, for many years. It is an integral and necessary part of the medical establishment in the area. I received an assurance from the then Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) in a letter of 28 January 2003. She said:
	"As you may know the Health Authority undertook a local consultation from January to April 2000. Following this consultation a commitment was made to the people of Gosport to develop a substantial facility as RH Haslar (subject to Ministry of Defence agreement on the use of the site), with day case surgery, diagnostic services, outpatient clinics and the Haslar Accident Treatment Centre. The local NHS remains committed to this vision, and we are working closely with the Ministry of Defence to take it forward."
	The problem is the proviso,
	"subject to Ministry of Defence agreement on the use of the site".
	Currently, there has been no arrangement between the Ministry of Defence and the NHS on the use of the site, and without that agreement the Ministry of Defence remains locked into owning a hospital that it does not want to run, and the NHS has superb facilities available to it, but cannot come to a final conclusion.
	As we sit here today, a private finance initiative bid is being considered for the other local hospital, the Queen Alexandra hospital, Corsham. Once the hospital trust sorts that out, it will be able look into the longer-term position. I maintain that, with the superb diagnostic imaging treatments available at Haslar, the MRI scanners and the ultrasound facilities, which are built into the structure of the building and are incapable of being moved elsewhere—quite apart from the 280 beds and other facilities—the NHS will not be able to cope without Haslar's facilities. I maintain that the Minister should follow through her commitment of 29 January 2003 and confirm that arrangements are being put in hand to transfer Haslar hospital from the ownership of the Ministry of Defence to the NHS, and then the NHS hospital trust could plan ahead. That having been done, I am confident that the Ministry of Defence, recognising that the Haslar facilities remained and would not be closed as currently projected in 2007, could examine its own plans further and continue to use the royal hospital, Haslar as a centre for medical excellence and esprit de corps in the Defence Medical Services. That is my plea today.
	The second issue is the Daedalus site in Lee-on-the-Solent. It came as a bombshell in February this year when the Home Office announced that it was considering, initially, 550 families, and subsequently 400 young men, to be located at the Daedalus site, a former naval air station at Lee-on-the-Solent. The area of west Lee-on-the-Solent has been in shock ever since. A local estate agent told me that he has not sold a single house there since the announcement was made. Yet when I tabled a parliamentary question asking the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration what consultations she had undertaken with local estate agents before stating that the identification of the site of the accommodation centre would not have an effect on house prices or sales—her assurance was that she had no reason to believe that it would have such an effect—the answer was, of course, none.
	The truth is that it has affected local house prices and the transferability of houses. I feel particularly sorry for a constituent who e-mailed me yesterday saying that he was under threat of redundancy and might need to sell his house, but could not afford to do so at a reduced price. Clearly, other areas where accommodation centres are under consideration—namely, Bicester and Newton—will affect decisions about the Daedalus site. The decision on Bicester, which was expected two or three weeks ago, has been delayed until the autumn. I believe that the delay may be due to the inspector's reservations about placing an accommodation centre in a quiet rural location next to a small village. It seems that the decision on Daedalus will await the Bicester decision. I regard waiting as good news because we know that the Government are considering the screening of applicants for political asylum outside the UK as urged by the Conservative party. If the Government are capable of pursuing that proposal, it will put off completely the need to have accommodation centres.
	I end by saying that siting an accommodation centre in Lee-on-the-Solent and placing 400 young men in a quiet seaside retirement area is viewed locally with horror. Local residents are worried about security because there are many military establishments in the area. They are concerned about pressure on resources. They know that young men from Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and the former Republic of Yugoslavia would not integrate locally. They are vehemently opposed to the plan. I hope that the Home Office will take my plea into account before taking a decision on Daedalus.

Geraldine Smith: I am grateful once again to have the opportunity to participate in an end-of-Session Adjournment debate. These debates really do provide Members with an opportunity to comment on a wide range of issues right across the political spectrum.
	The first issue that I wish to comment on today is the war in Iraq and its aftermath. I was not fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on the occasions when this matter was debated in the House, especially before the conflict, and I would therefore like to take this opportunity to put my position on the public record.
	I abhor the use of violence in all its forms. It runs contrary to my moral, intellectual and religious beliefs, and I find the appalling carnage, death and destruction that occur during a war almost too horrific to contemplate. Yet, despite having those deeply held views, I am also pragmatic enough to know that, in the dangerous world in which we live, there are occasions on which the use of military force is both necessary and justified. I had to be totally convinced that the use of military force was essential and that it complied with the requirements of international law before I supported military action against Iraq earlier this year. Throughout the pre-war period I was greatly encouraged by the Government's attempts to secure the peaceful disarmament of Iraq, under the auspices of the UN Security Council. The Government's role in persuading the US to follow the UN route, and in securing UN resolution 1441, was commendable.
	The policy of backing up resolution 1441 with a credible threat of military action if Iraq did not fully comply with its terms offered the best chance for the peaceful disarmament of Iraq then. However, as we are all aware, the French declaration of an intention to veto any resolution that specifically allowed the use of military action effectively scuppered that course of action. In my view, that collapse of the diplomatic process made war inevitable. The only question that remained to be answered was whether Britain should commit its armed forces to the conflict.
	I was convinced that Iraq did possess chemical and biological weapons and had to be disarmed. I was also convinced that weapons inspectors would not be able to achieve anything meaningful without the full and active co-operation of the Iraqi regime. I was further convinced that the Iraqi regime had no intention of giving that co-operation. Additionally, I believed that Saddam Hussein would not hesitate to use his weapons, or to supply them to terrorist organisations for use, against his perceived enemies. He and his regime had a proven track record of crimes against humanity. We have all now seen the mass graves. Of course, I could have been wrong then, but I was not prepared to take that chance and therefore I supported the Government's decision to commit our forces to the conflict in Iraq.
	The fact that as yet no weapons of mass destruction have been found does not lead me to conclude that the intelligence provided to the British and American Governments was seriously flawed. If we consider the situation in Northern Ireland and the issue of disarming the paramilitaries, we see that small organisations have been able to conceal arms and explosives in a relatively small area, and the combined efforts of the military, the intelligence agencies and the police force have been unable to detect them for more than 30 years. So it is hardly surprising that in a country the size of Iraq the former Iraqi regime has been able to hide its weapons. In my view, that merely demonstrates the futility of endlessly continuing with the UN weapons inspections. Throughout the Iraq crisis, the Prime Minister has displayed great fortitude, leadership and statesmanship and I commend him for that. The same cannot be said for the Leader of the Opposition.
	I shall now touch briefly on a couple of other issues. Although they are completely unrelated, they do have a common thread in that there are heated arguments in political circles about whether or not they should be the subject of referendums.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady has been uncharacteristically curt and ungracious about my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Many hon. Members will share her admiration for the Prime Minister's statesmanship, but will also be prepared to put on record their admiration for the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, from the start of the war to its finish, was wholehearted in his support for the Government and the British national interest.

Geraldine Smith: The Leader of the Opposition did fully support the Government during the conflict in Iraq. He called for us to take action and was behind the action that was taken, but now he seems to have changed his mind. He is taking an opportunistic view of a serious matter that should be above party politics.

Andrew Murrison: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Geraldine Smith: No, I am sorry, but I am limited to 10 minutes. I have moved on to the forthcoming European constitution—which may prompt more interventions—and to the proposals for English regional government and, in particular, a referendum for the north-west. I shall make it clear at the outset that I am not in favour of a referendum for either proposal.
	Taking the European constitution first, it appears to me to be premature, if not slightly absurd, to call for a referendum on a matter that is still very much subject to negotiation, the final outcome of which may have no significant constitutional impact on our citizens. Referendums should be held only when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held only when people know exactly what they are getting. I would therefore urge the Prime Minister to continue to resist the ill founded and opportunistic calls from the anti-European element, in the House and elsewhere, for an open-ended commitment to a referendum, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations on the European constitution.
	On the question of regional government, it would perhaps be more appropriate to refer to it as local government reorganisation, because it appears to have far more to do with the latter than the former. In this instance, I am opposed to a referendum being held, because we have more important matters to address, such as health, education, crime and antisocial behaviour. I am also opposed to what is being proposed and fully intend to campaign actively for a no vote when a referendum is held in the north-west region.
	To proceed with referendums on the basis of a favourable outcome on the minuscule return of a consultation process involving a tiny fraction of the electorate is both absurd and wrong. The decision looks even more bizarre when we remember that neither the few who were consulted, nor the even fewer who bothered to respond, had any detailed knowledge of the make-up of the forms of government that would be put to them in a referendum.
	It is clear that while the subject may excite many politicians, the general public appear to be indifferent to the whole idea. Equally, the business community is far from convinced of the benefits of regional government and is concerned about the adverse impact that it could have. I see little in the proposals for regional government that would kindle a spark of enthusiasm in the public or alleviate the concerns of the business community.
	Local democracy will be diminished rather than enhanced by the abolition of the county council structure and its replacement by a remote regional assembly. The cost of implementing the changes to local government structures will be enormous and the brunt of the cost—if not all of it—will be borne by local businesses and taxpayers. The Government will no doubt absolve themselves of any responsibility for the cost, on the grounds that it was local people who voted for the changes. While it may be argued that in the longer term the new structures will produce savings through economies of scale, such savings invariably fail to materialise in real life.
	What the regions of this country require now is additional resources for regional development, not additional regional government. If political change is required to achieve that, those changes should be made here at Westminster where the power and resources lie. The parliamentary programme should be changed to allow regular specific regional debates and, indeed, regional Question Times. The Government should appoint Ministers with responsibility for the development of a designated region, who can be held to account by the Members of Parliament for that region. That is the direction that we should take towards establishing a stronger, more effective role for the regions.
	I could have mentioned many other issues—the shortage of NHS dentists in my constituency, the need for still more police on the beat and community support officers, and the problems of rogue landlords in seaside towns—but I am aware that many Members wish to speak. I will say no more other than to wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a very happy recess and to urge all Members to—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's time is up.

John Wilkinson: We heard a refreshing and honest speech from the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), and a characteristically distinguished speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who has consistently represented the interests of his constituents vis-à-vis the future of the defence hospital at Haslar. I recently visited the site with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and I very much hope that it can stay in medical use and that it will be used by the civil population and the military. It is tragic that an institution of such distinction and historic excellence should be put at risk. I trust that wiser counsels will prevail.
	I also trust that wiser counsels will prevail in respect of the future of the cancer centre and the burns and plastics unit at Mount Vernon hospital in my constituency. For many years, since the advent in power of this Administration in 1997, I have had cause to come to the House to make speeches about the future of Mount Vernon hospital at Northwood and of Harefield hospital in my constituency. Both are regional specialist hospitals.
	The Northwood cancer centre is not just a centre of clinical excellence, but the Gray Cancer Institute, the Lynda Jackson Macmillan centre for cancer care and the Michael Sobell hospice for palliative care for cancer patients are all on the site. It is an integrated facility that is second to none in our part of the country. Furthermore, it takes patients not merely from north-west London but from Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire and beyond, as does Harefield hospital. Harefield is a cardio-thoracic centre that has done more heart transplants than any hospital in the world. Yet Her Majesty's Government are prepared to see both institutions so greatly reduced that they will have no significant standing in the future and their services will be transferred elsewhere regardless of the strong desire of patients, staff and local people that they should stay in their present locations, which are ideal.
	I will talk about Mount Vernon and, under the parliamentary procedure of the old days, I would have had cause to do so at this very moment. The official consultation on its future is paradoxically being carried out by the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority and it will conclude on 1 September before the House returns after the recess. It is urgent that the arguments to keep the cancer centre where it is be advanced once again.
	There has been huge investment over the years, and not just from the national health service. Many generous subscribers and charities have also invested there. I refer to the Gray Cancer Institute, which is funded almost entirely from private donations, as is the Restoration of Appearance and Function Trust, RAFT, which does marvellous pioneering work in the disciplines of burns and plastic surgery. Their work is recognised the world over.
	It is extraordinary that institutions of such excellence should be run down in favour of mega-hospitals that cost hundreds of millions of pounds and that are based in locations that are less than ideal. They are not ideal for my constituents or those who live in the catchment area currently served by Mount Vernon and by Harefield. Harefield is in a quiet rural village in green belt, but its services are to be transferred to Paddington. If one goes out of the hospital gates at Paddington for one's recuperation, there is a strong likelihood that one will be mugged. That is not the best way to recover.
	Let us consider the alternatives to the Mount Vernon cancer centre. One is in Hatfield on a greenfield site that has not even been identified. The other is at Hemel Hempstead, and I see the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) in his place. From my constituents' point of view, it is very remote and hard to reach.
	When we had a meeting in the House about the proper place for the cancer centre, the unanimous verdict of those Members present was, with, I think, one exception, that it should be where it is now at Mount Vernon. That was the view of the eminent professors from the Gray laboratory, the clinicians who work at Mount Vernon and tens of thousands of my constituents and others who have signed petitions in favour of Mount Vernon. However, because there is the extraordinary outlook that Whitehall and the NHS know best and that the planners should carry more clout than those who use or work in the service, we are facing a move away, with disastrous consequences for my constituency and an adverse effect on those who have enjoyed the quality of service at Mount Vernon and Harefield. I have never received a complaint about the quality of cancer care at Mount Vernon, so I do not comprehend why the service it provides that should be put at risk.
	We carried out an independent study about the relative costs of Harefield and Paddington. The net cost of the transfer of the cardio-thoracic services from Harefield to Paddington was about £135 million as against a cost of £20 million for the cost of modernisation of the existing facilities. The position at Mount Vernon is even more complicated because of the scanners and radiological facilities there.
	At long last, the North West London strategic health authority has come into the equation and it has persuaded the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority that the views of north-west Londoners should at least be taken into account. A parallel consultation is going on about the North West London strategic health authority's proposals. However, its proposals are predicated on the recommendations already made by Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. Therefore, all that North West London will say is that some residual cancer services should be retained at Mount Vernon. It has in mind an ambulatory service whereby outpatients can have radiotherapy and chemotherapy at Mount Vernon. It has been argued that, because no significant surgical facilities are left on the Mount Vernon site, thanks to the previous depredations of the NHS planners who have moved services to Hillingdon hospital and elsewhere, it is unsafe to maintain cancer treatment in depth at Mount Vernon. In view of the total infrastructure of cancer support and research at Mount Vernon, my argument is that it is infinitely cheaper to bring in additional surgeons as required.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is making an extremely revealing speech. Does he think that such perverse thinking on the part of the central planners might explain why the massive increase in expenditure on the NHS has not been matched by a commensurate increase in clinical activity?

John Wilkinson: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, but I see rays of hope. A new facility called the Anzac centre at Harefield has been opened. At last, more NHS investment is going in. At Mount Vernon, scanners are being modernised and extra facilities provided. An interim development is in process and, at long last, this is at the very least giving the NHS the option of going for a more cost-effective solution by building up the existing facilities. That is what my constituents and the patients who are treated at Mount Vernon would wish. It is important for plastic surgery and cancer treatment to be available on the same site so that we may have the totality of cancer care that Mount Vernon hospital provides. That is the desire of my constituents and in the weeks before the consultations conclude, I hope that such arguments will carry the day—they deserve to.

John Robertson: I am delighted to be able to participate in the debate. I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), wish to put several points on the record.
	I shall go straight to the Iraq war. Many of my constituents cannot understand why I have not spoken in any of the debates on the subject, so I now take my chance to do so. When I voted against the Government last March, I did so with a heavy heart. I am not one of the usual suspects, as they are called, but I have always been a party loyalist. I believe in collective responsibility, so I take some of the blame or credit for what has happened, depending on one's point of view.
	The amendment that was moved during the debate in March echoed my own reservations about the war. It did not say that Saddam Hussein was not an evil tyrant or that he should not be overthrown. In my opinion, it was not the right time to go to war. The inspectors had found little evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and although I have no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime had the capability to make and deploy such weapons, I thought that the process was at too early a stage to start a war.
	I also thought that the war was being hurried because of external factors. I believe that the fact that the US presidential elections are to be held next year had a great deal to do with the timing. The proof of the Government's position still needs to be shown, but I am willing to wait, because finding the weapons could take some time. After all, our servicemen have been in Northern Ireland for many years and we have hardly found a weapon. Why should we think that it would be easier in a country the size of Iraq?
	I supported the Government in the second vote on the Iraq debate because the motion contained a specific reference to United Nations involvement, about which I feel strongly. I was in Iraq between 10 and 12 June this year as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and our people on the ground were disappointed by the UN. Distribution of water by the UN in the Basra area has been poor and irregular, and the armed forces believe that aid would be distributed regularly if they were in charge of it. That has not happened under the UN and, as a result, local people blame the armed forces for poor water and food supplies although it is the fault of the UN. I take my hat off to the armed forces because they are doing an excellent job in conditions that hon. Members would not believe.
	We should now draw a line in the sand and look to the future. It does the people of Iraq no good when all we hear is politicians arguing over history and how it will be written. What those people want is their country back and to be fed and happy. They want a future to look forward to.
	My next point is important to my constituents in Glasgow, Anniesland. There are 13,500 pensioner households in my constituency and about 18,000 over-60s—it has one of the highest concentrations of elderly people in Europe. I am always keen to ensure that the Government implement measures to increase financial assistance and support for our pensioners.
	I recently met pensioners in my constituency specifically to discuss the new pension credit, which will be introduced in October. The credit is an excellent idea—anything that puts more money in pensioners' pockets is more than welcome. The overwhelming message that I am receiving is that pensioners welcome the credit but that there are worries about its implementation. Some letters that pensioners have received are complicated and should be simplified. We have yet to find out how the help systems will alleviate such problems, and I want an assurance from the Government that we will not have the same debacle that occurred with the new tax credits and that the system will be ironed out before October.
	I wish to mention shipbuilding, which I have spoken about many times in the Chamber and Westminster Hall. Any Glasgow Member with a constituency that borders the Clyde knows that BAE Systems is important to the area because it employs more than 2,000 people. However, I was dismayed to read in this week's newspapers about an argument that is creeping up about how much the new carriers will cost. The situation is another example of BAE Systems misusing its power on Ministry of Defence matters. I hope that the Government will sort out the situation. It is a bit worrying that the price of an aircraft carrier can practically double overnight. I hope that the Government will ensure that the company adheres to the agreements that it made when it signed the contracts.
	I chair the all-party group on telecommunications. I sighed with relief on Monday when we finished our consideration of the Lords amendments to the Communications Bill, which has now received Royal Assent. Over the past 18 months, we have addressed such issues as competition in the industry, regulation, the development and availability of new technology, conditions in the industry and consumer protection. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
	I want to raise a couple of issues that were neglected during our consideration of the Communications Bill. When an industry such as the communications industry is buoyant, the problem is that highly trained people are headhunted by more profitable companies that place little value on training. The EU high level taskforce on skills and mobility reported that 80 per cent. of today's skills will become obsolete in 10 years. Employees who were once highly skilled do not undergo sufficient training in the industry at present. It was unfortunate that during our consideration of the Bill, we could not reach the same agreement on training for communication workers as we could for broadcast workers, who were covered by the Bill. I hope that the White Paper on skills will lead to a consideration of that. The White Paper's foreword says:
	"The skills of our people are a vital national asset. Skills help businesses achieve the productivity, innovation and profitability needed to compete. They help individuals raise their employability, and achieve their ambitions for themselves, their families and communities."
	I hope that those matters will be considered for communication workers.
	I hope that Ofcom will do a better job than Oftel. I raised that with the then Leader of the House, when I asked:
	"Is my right hon. Friend aware of the restrictive practices that are being applied by NTL and Telewest in relation to the new directory enquiries system? They are not permitting any of their 5 million customers to contact the other"
	82 companies with "118" numbers
	"that are allowed to provide services and have paid a lot of money to obtain their numbers"
	when the ballot was held on the new numbering scheme. I went on to ask:
	"Will my right hon. Friend try to arrange a debate, or get in touch with the Department of Trade and Industry and in particular Oftel, which has refused to do anything on the grounds that 5 million people are too small a number to be bothered with? Perhaps one of the Opposition parties would consider requesting a debate next week."
	The Leader of the House replied:
	"I was not aware of that, and I thank my hon. Friend for telling me about it. If what he says is accurate, it is extremely disturbing, and at the very least it is something that I should bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I will do that."—[Official Report, 5 June 2003; Vol. 405, c. 327.]
	I am still waiting for a reply.
	I have received communications from both companies, but neither is prepared to allow free unlimited access to other "118" numbers, and will do so only if a financial agreement is arranged. That is deplorable. The 5 million customers, some of whom are in my constituency, receive an inferior service. At best, they could pay through the nose. I hope that Ofcom will look after consumers better than Oftel. I, for one, will not be sad to see it go.

Andrew Murrison: Does the hon. Gentleman share my regret that many telecommunication companies are not registered with the telecommunications ombudsman's excellent scheme? Will he join me in congratulating Virgin Mobile in Trowbridge on recently joining that scheme?

John Robertson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on plugging his constituents.
	When the "118" numbers for directory enquiries were auctioned off, no one was aware that 5 million people would not get access to them. The companies did not realise that they would have to make a deal with companies like Telewest or NTL for the numbers to be accessed. Five million is not a small number. After all, it is probably more people than voted Liberal.

Paul Tyler: I will not respond to that last remark by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson).
	I am delighted to contribute to the debate. A number of us contribute regularly to these debates. Unlike so many other occasions in the Chamber, I am impressed by the sincerity of the contributions by hon. Members on both sides of the House; there is little artificiality.
	I want to pick out three contributions by hon. Members who referred to the Iraq war. Although the contributions were different, they were all sincere. I hope hon. Members accept that my colleagues and I acknowledge the sincerity of others on the subject. I hope that that will be reciprocated. I do not think that people have been opportunistic—the issue is very important. It is, perhaps, the biggest that most of us will face in our political lifetimes. Hon. Members have genuinely felt it necessary to take a particular approach in difficult circumstances. I do not think that it is so much a case of deliberately deluding other people as a case of self-delusion. It is important for us to remember that.
	I was struck by what the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said. She reflected the important deep-seated concerns of many of our fellow citizens. That is summed up appositely by a former head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, Mr. Rodric Braithwaite, who said in the Financial Times on 10 July:
	"Fishmongers sell fish: warmongers sell wars."
	It is all too easy for those who have adopted an attitude to find good reasons to support it. That is not necessarily an exaggeration. Inevitably, if one has taken up a position, one tends to emphasise the things that support it rather than the things that oppose it. I recognised the sincerity of all three hon. Members who talked about Iraq.
	The hon. Member for Halifax also referred to sleep-related driving accidents, which is another important issue. I have worked with her and the excellent pressure group, Brake. It is a sad fact that 20 per cent. of accidents on motorways are due to sleep-related tendencies. That is serious.
	I am sure that the hon. Member for Tibet—[Hon. Members: "Tibet?"] I mean the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend), who spoke eloquently on behalf of the people of Tibet. He was right. It would be a great mistake for the Prime Minister not to take the opportunity to represent the views of the forgotten people of Tibet when he meets the Chinese leadership. We all hope that the UK Government will continue to give robust and consistent support for the Dalai Lama, who has been put in a difficult position by recent developments.
	The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) drew an interesting parallel between the issues that related to his constituency, all of which seemed to be about consultation. It is a feature of discussion on occasions like this that we are all concerned about the extent to which quite complicated proposals are put before us and before our constituents, but often in a way that either makes a fait accompli seem to be inevitable or, perhaps in some circumstances, makes it impossible for us to make a reasonable and intelligent contribution to an ongoing decision-making process.
	That is true for the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). I have followed him on four or five occasions in this sort of debate. On one occasion he was not in the Chamber when I had prepared my comments about what he would say, in anticipation. Although his efforts on behalf of the royal hospital have not been fully successful, the very fact that he has been persistent in seeking to draw the attention of all authorities at all levels to that centre of excellence has had an impact. However, there will now be a period of indecision. That is one of the problems of trying to hold back an unwelcome decision. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the special expertise that the defence medical team has had at the royal hospital, and moving it to Birmingham will inevitably be dislocating in the literal sense. I recognise that that is a real problem, but it is one that we all face.
	Every time we challenge an apparent decision that is put before us, we shall inevitably increase the period of indecision. That is a price that we have to pay, but one that as local representatives we are only too willing to pay in most circumstances, if it results in a better decision in the longer term.
	The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) talked about referenda. I hate the word referendums; it does not sound right. I thought that the hon. Lady was rather pushing her luck when she said that she was against a referendum on regional devolution but she would argue vociferously against the proposal that would be put forward. That sounds like not having one's cake and not eating it. That is an extraordinary attitude. If there is not to be a referendum, the hon. Lady would not have the opportunity to advance her argument.

Geraldine Smith: I said that I was against a referendum in the north-west at this moment because there are more important issues to deal with such as health, education, crime and antisocial behaviour, and because there was no support for a referendum.

Paul Tyler: The hon. Lady also said that she would argue strongly against it. If she did not have a referendum, she would not have that opportunity. She said that she was against all referenda, before she came to that section of her speech. I made a careful note. She said that she was against referenda. She also said that she was against a referendum on the European Union constitution because it would be premature. That is perfectly reasonable, but there may come an opportunity and a moment when we have to have recourse to the British people, to give them an opportunity to express themselves. I believe that that is highly likely, and so do my colleagues. For the hon. Lady to say in advance that we do not know what is in it and therefore we should not have a referendum is just as absurd as saying, "We don't know what is in it, therefore we should have a referendum." Clearly we should wait to see what the question is, and then decide how best to put it to the British people.
	The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)—this is a subject that I have heard him speak about before—

John Bercow: It is pronounced Ryeslip.

Paul Tyler: I come from the far Celtic west and I confess that I do not know where these places are.
	The issue was, of course, consultation. I accept very much what the hon. Gentleman said. I know a little about Harefield because some of my constituents have benefited from the extraordinary professionalism and skills at Harefield hospital. I am not so well aware of Mount Vernon hospital. However, that would seem to be another example where consultation is at the key of what will happen. Of course, in such a case, it is a matter of consultation not only within the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the immediate area around it; so many people, including some of my constituents, have benefited from the high quality of service at these hospitals.
	In a sense, this is a half-term report. Unfortunately, I do not have an opportunity at the end of the debate to speak on behalf of my colleagues. However, I respect what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland said about the debate on 18 March. It was a seminal moment for the House. There was not a free vote exactly, but it became a real debate. The hon. Gentleman listened carefully to the arguments and he took a view. I respect his sincerity. His view happened to be the same as mine. I equally respect the sincerity of those who took a different view, having listened to the debate.
	On that occasion—I give credit to the Government in this respect—we clipped the wings of the royal prerogative. I doubt whether any future Prime Minister could possibly go to war—could send troops from this country to any major hostilities—without coming to the House for a definitive debate and a definitive vote. That is an important step forward for all of us who believe that parliamentary democracy should be strengthened.
	I should like to put in my two-penn'orth now, and deal with my own hobby horse. I would like to tell the House a cautionary tale. Last Wednesday, I tabled a question to the Prime Minister. It happened to be the day on which, by firm convention, the Government should have given the House its response to proposals by the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform. They had two months to respond, but did not do so. As I said in business questions, they gave their response yesterday, and it was published at midnight.
	I therefore asked the Prime Minister
	"how he intends to fulfil the undertaking to make the House of Lords more representative and democratic."
	In his response, the Prime Minister did not shuffle the matter sideways, as has often been the case in the past, but said:
	"I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) on 7 July".—[Official Report, 9 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 853W.]
	I therefore looked at the question tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell), who asked the Prime Minister
	"what plans he has to ensure that political opinion in Northern Ireland is proportionately represented in the House of Lords."
	The answer was:
	"I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) on 15 January".—[Official Report, 7 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 617–18W.]
	I went back again and found that on that occasion the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay)—I am sorry that he is not here—asked the Prime Minister
	"if it is his policy that the political balance of the House of Lords should be maintained prior to the implementation of legislation completing the second stage of reform."
	The Prime Minister replied:
	"While the way forward on reform of the House of Lords is still under consideration, arrangements for identifying new members of the House remain unchanged. Membership of the House is kept under ongoing review."—[Official Report, 15 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 632.]
	I should like to make two points to the House. First, those are three very different questions. Even if the first answer was right, it is clearly not right for the other two questions. Secondly, and much more importantly, since that first question and answer, we have had a major debate in both Houses and a major Division in the Commons, substantially rejecting the option of a fully appointed upper Chamber, which was promoted by the Prime Minister in concert with the then Lord Chancellor. There were 78 votes against that option—the biggest majority of the evening. Moreover, the Joint Committee has undertaken a careful analysis of the position and reported to the House. The Prime Minister, however, ignored that, because he referred me to an answer that preceded all those events.
	I am not someone who thinks that the Prime Minister treats the House of Commons as a doormat, although I know that some Members think so. However, that is heavy and substantial evidence of the Prime Minister's level of respect not just for what is said in the House, but for its votes. The House voted firmly and securely against a fully appointed House of Lords and, as the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said immediately after my contribution to business questions this afternoon, the House clearly does not want a House full of Tony's cronies—we do not want a fully appointed upper House. However, the paper published by the Lord Chancellor today talks about a House that in the medium term, and not just the short term, would get rid of the remaining 92 hereditary peers and appoint all its Members. With that proposal for a fully appointed House of Lords, he is telling the House of Commons, "I do not care what you think".
	The attitude of some hon. Members to House of Lords reform, and especially its electoral aspects, has been conditioned by the concern that the Commons should remain pre-eminent. We have all heard that argument, but what does it say about the Government's respect for that view if, when the Commons votes against a fully appointed upper Chamber, they say, "To hell with you, we do not care what you think"? It is a ridiculous situation, and as soon as we return from the recess we must take the issue very seriously indeed.

John Bercow: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Given that democratic legitimacy and parliamentary scrutiny alike dictate that the Government should now proceed to fulfil their manifesto commitment on an elected second Chamber, does he not share my concern that the present Leader of the House of Commons does not seem to be as willing to flex his muscles on this subject as, to his great and enduring credit, was the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)?

Paul Tyler: All I can say is: let us wait and see. I hope we may find that the Leader of the House is prepared to stand up for what the House has said and clearly determined in its votes. Let us wait and see—there will be opportunities. As the right hon. Gentleman told the House earlier this afternoon, he voted for a 100 per cent. elected House, an 80 per cent. elected House and a 60 per cent. elected House.
	I draw to the attention of colleagues again the fact that 332 hon. Members voted for one or other of those options. From the Lord Chancellor's paper, one would think that he had not read our debate. Pretending that there was no consensus for a substantial elected element is being economical with the truth. It is ridiculous. A majority of the House voted for a substantial elected element in a new second Chamber, and the Government should be prepared to accept that. If the Government say that this House is predominant, they should listen to what is said here.
	This is an extremely important issue. The House should establish its credentials as the proper place to ensure that the manifesto commitments of an incoming Government are implemented in full. It is not just the Cabinet that is committed to making the House of Lords more democratic and representative; it is every single Member on the Government Benches who stood at the last general election on that manifesto and has that mandate.

Rudi Vis: I raised the case of Cyprus in the Whitsun Adjournment debate on 22 May this year, and in many debates before that, and I return to the case of Cyprus today. I do so because on the surface it appears that many changes have taken place during the past few months; the reality, however, is different.
	I remind the House that Turkey invaded Cyprus in July 1974—some 29 years ago—violating just about every conceivable international norm. Two hundred thousand Greek Cypriots were uprooted overnight, 5,000 were killed and some 1,600 are still missing. Countless UN resolutions, debates and efforts to find a solution have been thwarted by Turkey and by the leader of the occupied territory, Mr. Denktash. The Council of Europe regularly finds against Turkey, and the European Court of Human Rights has upheld all cases against Turkey, but no positive responses to its resolutions have been forthcoming from Turkey. It is now being suggested by Turkey that all that has changed. That can easily be refuted.
	Yes, indeed, there were general elections in Cyprus in 2002, when AKEL, the socialist party, became the largest party. Yes, indeed, European Union accession negotiations have resulted in Cyprus signing the treaty of accession on 16 April this year. Yes, indeed, a new President, Tassos Papadopoulos, was voted into office on 16 February this year, and the new coalition Government of Mr. Papadopoulos of the Democratic party, DIKO, with AKEL, the Ecologists and the Social Democrats—EDEK, formerly called KISOS—have made an excellent start.
	However, none of the above or any other changes, such as allowing Greek Cypriots to visit their own properties and villages in the occupied part of Cyprus, which Mr. Denktash announced some two months ago, has any bearing on an acceptable political solution. There is no solution at present. All we know is that Mr. Denktash said no on 11 March 2003 in The Hague to Mr. Kofi Annan's latest proposals.
	To my mind, those UN proposals are now dead, but there are some interesting developments that throw some light on the matter. Turkey is fast losing its influence in the United States and other nation states. It is also deeply in debt. Turkey is totally focused on joining the European Union and it is in a bind. It has an abominable human rights record not only with regard to Cyprus, but in many other respects. Opening up the border between the legitimate part of Cyprus and the occupied part is an attempt to give the impression that democracy and human rights now prevail. Nothing is further from the truth. It has become crystal clear that Turkey should not be invited to start accession negotiations with the European Union until its attitude to human rights has improved considerably.
	Like previous UK Governments, this Government apparently remain convinced that Turkey is a humane place and a parliamentary democracy. The other day, our Government mentioned that Turkey had recently given up the death penalty. That is rather curious, since, as a member of the Council of Europe, it should have done so many decades ago.
	I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House to convey to the Foreign Secretary the fact that I and many colleagues in the House would want to see real changes in Turkey, and for some considerable time, before even contemplating allowing it to commence accession negotiations.

Alistair Burt: I shall not necessarily follow the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) down the line that he took, but having been a councillor in the borough of Haringey many years ago, I am well aware of the importance in that area of matters affecting the Cypriot, Greek and Turkish communities, so I understand why he raised those subjects. Instead, I wish to follow the line taken by colleagues on both sides of the House and raise a number of constituency issues. I should be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House would convey some of my questions directly to his colleagues.
	Constituents have asked me to raise a number of issues before Parliament adjourns for the recess. Some were prompted by recent meetings at parish councils, but the concerns relate to parish, county, regional, national and international issues, so I shall do my best to get through them in the next 10 minutes.
	First, on parish issues, I am sure that I speak on behalf of many of us in saying a word of thanks to those who fill places on parish councils and work so hard for us at a local level. We very much appreciate the work that they do. A number of issues that parish council members raised with me can be handled locally, but they wanted me to bring one or two to the House. First, they are still rather uncertain about the Government's view of them. They worry about the burden of regulation and the increasing amount of audit to which they are subject. Do the new proposals for ensuring that members must declare all their interests indicate some degree of suspicion about those on parish councils? Surely not.
	I ask the Government to keep constantly under review the bureaucracy that affects parish councils. Will they let us know what representations have been made in the past 12 months about the burden of bureaucracy that parish councils now face, how many vacancies currently exist on parish councils throughout the country and what notification has been given of people leaving parish councils in the past 12 months?
	The second issue that parishes raised with me, which has a wider impact, is their concern about young people. Most parishes have the same worries about some youngsters in their localities and the fact that not much guidance is available to them. In trying to do something for them, the same issue repeatedly arises—the lack of adult volunteers who can look after youngsters these days, including those in voluntary groups, uniformed societies and others. We know some of the reasons why that is the case. People are perhaps busier than they have ever been. Those who work away from home have longer travelling times and cannot give their time to the community as they did in the past.
	There are other more difficult issues that the Government might consider. Rising insurance is a continuing problem. Everything connected with societies and activities for youngsters seems to attract increasingly large insurance bills these days. That is preventing some activities from taking place. Again, the burden of regulation and the hoops through which people have to jump in order to show that they are fit and proper persons to look after youngsters are significant. No one wants youngsters to be put at risk, but are we placing so many barriers in people's way that we are stopping them coming forward to fulfil roles in local communities that people have filled for many generations? Perhaps as a Parliament and as a nation we might put out a national call to encourage more people to be prepared to lead youngsters, using whatever skills they might have to provide a measure of stability and extra expertise to bring them on in our communities.
	Another issue that was raised by the parishes, but applies on a wider county basis, concerns the statement that was made earlier this afternoon by the Secretary of State for Education. Bedfordshire, too, has suffered from the problems in education funding this year. Some 52 schools have applied to run a deficit budget; last year, only 11 schools in the county were in that situation. Four schools have told the county council that they are unable to set a budget. That is clearly very serious.
	Although the Secretary of State's admission of error is welcome, I would be grateful if the Government would clear up one particular issue. On 2 May, the Department for Education and Skills sent a letter to my county council asking for information connected with the suggestion that county councils were retaining funds and withholding them from schools. On 12 May, Bedfordshire county council's local education authority replied to the letter, making it very clear that they had indeed passed on the money. The Government have provided no response beyond a generic letter suggesting that its reply was too detailed and that people cannot now expect a proper response. That is not good enough. If my county council is prepared to deal with the Government's allegation, the Government should be prepared to deal properly with the council's response. That would help to assuage the anger that people feel about the matter.
	On health, my constituents are worried about the gap in health funding between different parts of the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority. Three Bedfordshire PCTs are underfunded in terms of their distance from target. This year, on average, their distance below target is 4.7 per cent. At the end of this period of funding, which runs until the end of 2005–06, they will still be 4 per cent. below target. By contrast, Hertfordshire authorities are above target and three of them will remain above target at the end of the same period. The plea from Bedfordshire is that the gap between targets and budgets should be closed. When a group of all-party MPs from Bedfordshire went to see the previous Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), he received us very well. I was surprised to learn from him that because the 2001 census figures were being used to calculate expenditure over the next few years, the funding system did not have built into it any provision for an increase in population between the current year and 2005–06. Bedfordshire is expanding very rapidly. Will the Government reconsider their funding mechanism to see whether it could be given any increase in forthcoming years to make up for its rising population?
	One of my constituents' concerns reflects a national concern—the problem of Yarl's Wood. Hon. Members will recall that Yarl's Wood, the largest asylum detention centre in Europe, was burned to the ground in February 2002. It is planned to reopen part of it later this year. We still have no information relating to the causes of the fire. The existing building is of the same construction as that which caused the fire, and we are not convinced that those who are detained there and work there will be safe. The criminal trial of those who are suspected of causing the fire, which is currently taking place, is likely to come to an end during the summer. Could the Government delay the reopening of Yarl's Wood until after the trial and the publication of the inquiry report so that my constituents and those who will work and be detained at Yarl's Wood can have some idea of why the buildings caught fire so quickly and be sure that it will be safe in future?
	On an international point, I, like many people who were born and brought up in the industrial north-west of England, have a passion for hills and mountains: in my case, those close to the Lake District and to north Wales. I draw the House's attention to the international year of the mountain that took place in 2002. I should like to ask the Government for their response to that. The international year of the mountain was designed to give the world an understanding of the issues affecting mountain communities. It was intended to ensure the present and future well-being of mountain communities by promoting conservation and sustainable development, increasing the awareness and knowledge of mountain ecosystems, and by recognising that in much the same way that the world depends on rainforests, it also depends on mountains.
	I am indebted to Trail magazine and its deputy editor, Matt Swaine, whom I met to discuss these issues, for recognising that these issues are international and also affect this country. Our mountain areas are not as high as some in the world, and are concentrated in Scotland, north Wales and the Lake district. Will the Minister assess and let us know what success or otherwise the Government think that the international year of the mountain has had internationally? As far as this country is concerned, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of the international year of the mountain in the UK, and have they assessed the representations made during that year by those who love the mountains? What mechanism do they have in place for monitoring the resolution of various issues in relation to access, safety and other matters? I would be indebted if he would provide that information.

Alan Hurst: I was never much of a mathematician but my simple calculation is that I should probably restrict my speech to no more than five minutes, lest all Members who wish to speak do not have the opportunity so to do.
	My subject is events in the Brain valley, which may not be as familiar to hon. Members as the Thames valley, the Colorado valley or the Rhine valley. It is nevertheless a picturesque piece of north Essex countryside, which is faced by present threats and problems. The River Brain makes its way down to the Blackwater and thence into the North sea, but the part to which I refer is that further upstream, and particularly involves the villages of Black Notley and White Notley. All villages have some dispute as to the origins of their name, and I am led to believe that one version is that Black Notley was affected by the black death, but those who lived in White Notley escaped that plague. The two villages are two or three miles apart, but between them lies a small hamlet known as the Green, which is adjacent to Black Notley, but most of which is in White Notley. The problem that faces this hamlet is an extension of a golf course.
	Black Notley will be familiar to those who have studied science, as it was the birthplace of John Ray, the eminent botanist and naturalist, who in many parts of the world is regarded as superior to Darwin himself. That is certainly the view locally. The threat today is not from a malicious weed, however, but from the extension of a golf course that is already situated there. The golf course already has 27 holes, and its owners intend to extend it by a further nine holes, and thus the little hamlet of the Green will become surrounded by a golf course. To some hon. Members, that might seem to be paradise, but to those who do not play golf it is not.
	Primarily, the concern is the loss of high-grade agricultural land, and the extension is strongly opposed by the residents. It is also argued that there is probably not a need. My political division already has eight golf courses—it would be superfluous to name them—and adjacent divisions have others close to our boundaries. The question that I put to the House and thence to the wider world outside is whether there is a need in that particular place. Should it not be incumbent on those who make applications of this kind to provide numbers to show that there is insufficient provision at present? Indeed, it should be incumbent on those at the Notleys course as it now stands to show that there is an over-demand for the playing of golf as opposed to one for the use of the social facilities.
	Local plans are mysteries of philosophy that few follow until a problem comes along, at which point people study them with great ardour. The local plan has this to say about the development of golf courses:
	"The development of golf courses on prominent sites, scarp slopes, valleys, exposed plateaux and ridges will not be permitted."
	I do not know which of those prominent sites is relevant in this case, but the proposed course is to be on very high ground overlooking the whole sweep of the Brain valley, which has already been defaced by the existing course. The local residents are therefore concerned that there will be a fundamental breach not only of their privacy but of the local plan.
	The final argument against the extension to the golf course, which would cause great harm to local residents, is the dangerous condition of the country road that winds its way along the slope of the Brain valley between the proposed golf course and the existing one. A 40 mph limit applies on that road, but those hon. Members who represent rural divisions will know that the adherence to such limits is not as strict as one might like it to be. One can imagine the risk to the lives of motorists and golfers as the golfers walk across the road with their trolleys, chatting to each other about the state of play at hole 27, as they make their way over to hole 28.
	I raise this matter not because I am opposed to golf or because I believe that there should not be golf courses. There should, however, be a limit to the number of golf courses and to the number of holes that each course is permitted. We should strike a balance between the construction of golf courses and the preservation of our historic and scenic countryside, and we should give the latter the greater priority, rather than creating a surfeit of golf courses for which there appears to be no immediate need.

Alan Reid: I am privileged to represent a constituency that contains the most beautiful scenery in the country. However, the drawback of such a large and remote constituency is that transport issues are always to the fore. Cutting the costs and increasing the frequency of transport links are vital to expanding economic activity and public services in the highlands and islands. That is why I want to use the opportunity of this debate to speak in favour of the HITRANS—the Highlands and Islands Strategic Transport Partnership—proposals for creating a network of frequent and affordable integrated air services throughout the highlands and islands and to other destinations such as Glasgow and Edinburgh.
	The proposals will also mean improvements to the infrastructure of island airports and new construction work to provide, for the first time, scheduled air services to Oban, and from Oban to the islands of Coll and Colonsay. The market alone cannot build up and sustain such a network; Government financial support is required. The scheme has strong support from the Scottish Executive and from local government throughout the highlands and islands, but, because it requires public service obligations—PSOs—to be put on the routes, it also needs the support of the UK Department for Transport. That is because the decision to apply to the European Union for permission to impose a PSO on the network is a reserved power vested in the Department for Transport here. I hope that the Government will support this exciting new initiative, and I stress that it will not cost the Government here a penny; all the costs will be paid for by the Scottish Executive and local councils.
	I hope that the Government will support the scheme and actively seek to persuade the European Union of the need for this PSO. The use of PSOs to secure regional air services at affordable fares and a regular frequency is commonplace throughout the rest of Europe. Countries such as France, Spain, Portugal and Norway use PSOs frequently for this purpose. Given that the highlands and islands are the most sparsely populated area of Europe, surely we can do the same there. I believe that this is the only way to regenerate the economy of the highlands and islands and reverse centuries of population decline in the remoter parts of the region.
	I also want to speak briefly about broadband. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee got it right in its recent report when it called on the Government to develop a strategy to make broadband accessible to all, and to set out the funding to be made available and the steps to be taken, according to a clear timetable, to achieve this objective.
	A few years ago, we were all hopeful that the internet would be a great benefit to businesses in remote rural areas, allowing them to compete with businesses based in urban areas on equal terms in many fields. However, because of the slow progress of broadband installation, that objective is very much in doubt. If we leave broadband installation up to the market, it is obvious that remote areas of the country will never be connected. The amounts of money that the Government have so far given are insufficient to enable broadband connection in remote areas. Telecommunications is a reserved power, so I urge the Government to act urgently, implement the report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and ensure that broadband access is available to everyone.
	I conclude by giving an example of a Government official who does not appreciate the geography of the highlands and islands. One of the staff at the Government's much maligned tax credit helpline told one of my constituents in Campbeltown to go to his nearest tax office in Rothesay to collect an emergency payment. Those familiar with the geography of the west highlands will know that, to do that round trip, my constituent would have to make four ferry journeys and drive 128 miles. I am sure that the House will agree that the helpline was not particularly helpful.
	Given the unique geography of the highlands and islands, unique solutions are often required to solve the problems created by that geography. I urge the Government, and, most important, their helpline officials, always to bear that geography in mind.

Joan Ruddock: I want to speak on genetic modification. I believe that, with the exception of Iraq, GM is the most important issue that the House faces. Tomorrow is the closing date for the Government's public debate on genetic modification. Six days ago, the strategy unit reported on the costs and benefits of GM crops. Two weeks ago, the European Parliament ruled on labelling, traceability and co-existence of GMOs and GM crops, in effect ending the moratorium on commercial growing of GM crops in Europe. Today, the Food Standards Agency released its findings on consumer views on GM food. The science review is expected next week. However, we have not had a single debate on the Floor of the House about the momentous decision that could be taken in our name before the end of this year.
	The public remain hostile to GM, yet we, their elected representatives, are woefully unengaged in a debate that could lead to our constituents having no choice but to eat GM food. Why do I say no choice? Because evidence is growing that gene flow is a reality, and that once GM crops are grown commercially in this country their genetically modified traits will spread to non-GM crops and weeds. That phenomenon makes it extremely unlikely that the status of non-GM crops and organic crops co-existing with GM crops could be guaranteed. Without that guarantee, consumers will be denied choice, and the unpredictable consequences of GMOs in our food chain and our living environment will be irreversible.
	Recent studies have shown that pollen can move much further than previously predicted. In Australia, herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape was found to cross-pollinate with oilseed rape up to 3 km from the source fields, yet the separation distance currently used in the test crops in Britain is only 200 m. French researchers have shown that the seeds of sugar beet weeds can travel more than 1 km from their source by hitch-hiking on farm machinery, leading the researchers to predict that the likelihood of gene flow through seeds has been much underestimated.
	Even more spectacular than the evidence of scientific studies is the experience of Canadian farmers, who enthusiastically embraced commercial growing of GM crops in the mid-1990s. About 75 per cent. of Canadian canola—oilseed rape to us—is GM herbicide-tolerant, enabling farmers to treat weeds with chemicals such as Round Up without harm to the plant. Not only has herbicide-tolerant gene flow to non-GM plants been a problem, but farmers growing entirely GM crops have experienced difficulties that seriously undermine the whole rationale of herbicide tolerance.
	GM seeds shed at harvest time remain in the ground and germinate in future years. The result is that treating fields with, for example, Round Up before sowing a GM crop is no longer sufficient, as many of the weeds—or "volunteers" as they are called—are tolerant of the herbicide. The solution is to add a herbicide to the pack to kill the volunteers that have been modified for tolerance to the main herbicide. Thus a regime that was supposed to reduce herbicide use and introduce more benign herbicides now includes the much more toxic 2.4D and paraquat.
	Resistance to more than one herbicide is also occurring, by a process of gene-stacking from the pollination of one herbicide-tolerant variety by another. In a paper reviewing the Canadian experience, English Nature said that it believed that such processes would be undesirable in Britain and out of keeping with our agri-environment policy. Gene flow, however, is not the only issue in the debate about the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops and consumer choice of foods. Contamination incidents are becoming more and more frequent. We expect new European laws to be enacted later this year, which will give more teeth to traceability and listing; but if crops are grown commercially in the United Kingdom, such laws may serve only to prove that separation has become impossible.
	In August last year, GM oilseed rape grown in the UK for farm scale evaluation was found to be contaminated with another GM variety that was not approved for use. In the United States last November, soya beans destined for human consumption were mixed with GM maize containing genes to produce pharmaceuticals. The two crops had been grown in rotation on the same land.
	Once again, the experience of Canadian farmers is most telling. In a recent sample of 35 canola seeds, 95 per cent. were found to be contaminated by GM, and 50 per cent. of those had double resistance to glyfosate and glufosinate. As a consequence of contamination, organic canola farming on the prairies of Canada is impossible, and has been abandoned by most in the business. The Canadian experience is devastating. I have dealt only with the science, not with the farmers' many bad experiences with Monsanto, but suffice it to say that virtually all the agriculture industry—including the Canadian National Farmers Union and the Canadian Wheat Board—now oppose the introduction of GM wheat to Canada.
	Friends of the Earth has looked at how that experience would be translated in Britain. It recently mapped out, for the first time, the locations of five of the wild plant varieties that are most closely related to oilseed rape, such as wild turnip and wild cabbage. The maps show that those species, which are known to cross-pollinate with the arable crop, are widespread across the country. That suggests that if GM oilseed rape is grown practically anywhere in the UK, cross-breeding will be almost inevitable.
	Experience is also being gained in the use of the herbicides themselves. One of the most positive points made about GM was that it could reduce the use of herbicides. Studies show that a decline in the use of chemicals on GM Bt cotton has taken place, while there have been no such results in the case of GM soya beans. The failure of GM-tolerant maize to provide the weed control advantages that were anticipated has necessitated the addition of the persistent chemical atrazine to the glufosinate weed killers designed to be used with GM crops. Furthermore, a GeneWatch study of GM Bt cotton suggests that even its success may be short-lived, as pests not killed by the Bt are on the increase.
	I have dealt with only a few of the environmental issues surrounding GM crops in highly developed countries. The problems that such crops might inflict on the diverse and fragile environments of developing countries could be even more acute. Time does not permit me to pursue the potential health effects, but I know that a recent paper in "Nutrition and Health" found that there had been only 10 published studies of the health effects of GM food and feed. More than half were carried out in collaboration with GM companies. They found no effects on body organs, whereas several of the independent studies found unexplained changes.
	GM is still a very new and untried technology for environmental release. This Government have worked hard to develop a sustainable agriculture policy, which would be fatally undermined by the commercialisation of GM crops. I urge my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House to ensure that a full debate take place on this subject when we return in September, so that Members can take account of the wealth of information now available that points to the completely unacceptable effects of commercialising GM crops in this country.

David Amess: There are several points that I wish to raise before the House adjourns for the summer recess, and I shall try to deal with them very quickly. The first concerns Jo Martinson, a constituent of mine who died in a car accident last year at the age of 19. She was driving along Hamlet Court road with her boyfriend, and Mr. X, who was in a van, backed out of a turning, causing her to swerve into a tree. As a result, she lost her life.
	The Solicitor-General has done everything that she possibly can to try to help the grieving parents and family of Jo Martinson to try to get justice for their daughter. As of this moment, there has been no trial of the person who is believed to have been in the vehicle responsible for Jo's death. Jo's family are very angry, and I should certainly be failing in my duty were I not to continue to raise this issue until justice has been done. Jo's mother recently wrote to me following a letter from the Rayleigh road policing unit. She says that she read Mr. X's letter
	"with a now familiar sense of disbelief; he has chosen to reflect on that which is accepted yet ignore salient, contentious issues.
	The Director of Public Prosecutions reported that 'The offence, (no insurance), was alleged to have been committed on 7th November 2001, but the Police did not lay the information until 24th May 2002, seventeen days after the six month limitation had expired'. He continued: 'it could not be argued that the Police were unaware of the insurance matter'.
	As you know, he was clear that: 'in advising the Police to support any charges relating to Miss Martinson's death, the reviewing Crown Prosecutor did advise that the other Road Traffic Act offences relating to Mr. X's vehicle were made out . . . it remains the responsibility of Police to start proceedings'."
	The Solicitor-General agreed with those points. My constituent continues:
	"The police clearly did not follow advice. The Solicitor General recognised errors and allegations 'should have been pursued, and they were not'.
	It is therefore difficult not to take issue with
	the letter from Rayleigh, which was "dismissive" and "irrelevant". She continues by saying that, "incredibly", the gentleman writing the letter
	"considered the newspaper statement accurate and acceptable, suggesting complacency is a standard Police response."
	My constituent feels that the gentleman from Rayleigh attempted to evade the issues and to evade responsibility.
	Mr. X's car—which backed out into the road, thereby causing the accident—was untaxed and not roadworthy, and Mr. X had only one eye. To this day, all that has happened is that he has received a £60 fine.
	The second issue is the trial of three British nationals that is taking place in Egypt. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and the hon. Members for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and for East Ham (Mr. Timms) are also affected by that trial, on which we have spent a great deal of time. The three Britons are accused of being involved in an organisation that is intent on undermining the Egyptian Government. The trial has been in the national news and has gone on for a very long time. It has been started and then stopped, and I am delighted that Baroness Symons has made a very strong statement about it. Those involved became ill when they were brought to court, and the trial was again stopped. However, I am delighted to say that today, the defence will be heard. We had a meeting with the Egyptian ambassador, and I hope that matters will now proceed very swiftly and that there will be a successful outcome for our constituents.
	The Secretary of State for Education made his statement to the House, which we all welcome. I hope that it has not come too late for Southend where, on average, secondary schools face a £400,000 shortfall in funding and primary schools face a £50,000 shortfall. The chairman of the local secondary heads association has written to me to say that
	"several schools in Southend are forced to declare deficit budgets in this current year (including my own), and we are having to meet LEA officers to draw up four-year recovery plans. In my school, we are in the absurd position of having a £3 million new extension project due to open this September, but we will not have the money to clean it or maintain it!"
	That is absolutely crazy.
	Marvellous things are happening in education in my constituency. We have a new special needs centre; I was fortunate enough to be present at the opening of the Whitehall performing arts centre, which is adjoined to Eastwood school; I shall be going to the opening of a new sports centre shortly. I hope that the school funding fiasco never happens again.
	My next point concerns mobile phone masts. I am totally dissatisfied with the way in which this matter continues to be handled. The Library briefing states:
	"Mobile telephones emit radio waves that can penetrate human tissue, producing a heating effect. Safety guidelines produced by the National Radiological Protection Board are based solely on avoiding the known biological consequences of excess heating."
	Sir William Stewart amplified his warnings to the British Association in September 2001, and called for the cost of handsets to be increased to restrict their use by children. He said also that he would not allow his grandchildren to use a mobile phone. Concern about children relates partly to the thinness of their skulls; up to 50 per cent. more radiation is absorbed by children compared with adults. I should have thought that, following the recent disgraceful episodes concerning the abuse of the internet, this House owes it to our children to give a greater steer on the overuse of mobile phones than we have at the moment.
	This week, a campaign called "Keep Mail on Rail" visited this House. I was concerned to learn from a constituent that the mail is to be taken off the railways and put on the roads. I agree with those who lobbied us saying that that would result in increased pollution, undermine the Government's transport policy, cause significant job losses and result in an inferior delivery service. The gentleman who suggested this change does not have a marvellous track record of success and I hope that Ministers will look at it again.
	On crime, I hope that the Minister will urge the Home Office to look again at the pay and conditions of police officers. In Southend, we are continuing to lose police officers to the Met, where the pay is £6,000 more. There has also been a cut in overtime. We have seen drug offences rising by 16 per cent. over the last year, with violent crime up by 20 per cent. and gun crime up by 35 per cent. Anyone who says that we do not need more police is wrong.
	In conclusion, if any Members want to pop to Southend to enjoy our glorious summer, they will receive a warm welcome.

Tom Cox: I wish to speak about Pakistan. I declare an interest as I am the chairperson of the British-Pakistani parliamentary group. We are an active group of Members of both Houses of Parliament with a close relationship with the Pakistan High Commissioner here in London. I am also the chairperson of the United Kingdom Commonwealth Parliamentary Association branch, but I do not speak in that capacity today.
	What Members of both Houses who belong to the all-party group on Pakistan seek is Pakistan's return to full membership of the Commonwealth. I understand that the Commonwealth ministerial action group will meet in September to discuss the issue. Nine Commonwealth countries are members of that group, and they will make the recommendation for or against Pakistan's return to full membership of the Commonwealth. The United Kingdom is not a member of the action group, but has great influence within the Commonwealth, as I well know, and I seek the UK's support on the matter before the discussions take place.
	We all know that the history of Pakistan since independence has been clouded with problems. There have been military takeovers and parliamentary elections in which different political parties have been elected. When those parliamentary elections took place, we all hoped that the elected Government would bring about real changes within Pakistan. Sadly, that did not happen for a variety of reasons, including Government incompetence, general corruption and corruption at the highest level.
	Pakistan is a country of 130 million people and it has close links with the UK. Large communities of people came to this country from Pakistan. They have made their homes here, but they all retain links with Pakistan. They are proud of the country of their birth. When I meet them locally, I find—as I am sure do other hon. Members—that they always mention Pakistan's return to full membership of the Commonwealth. I would like the Government to give their fullest support in discussions before the ministerial action group meets.
	Let us reflect on the appalling political circumstances of Pakistan in 1999. General Musharraf took power—thankfully, in a bloodless takeover—and said clearly that the return to parliamentary democracy, free of corruption and the incompetence of political parties, and with the support of the people of Pakistan, was a key commitment. I am delighted, as is the all-party group, to say that progress has been made in Pakistan in respect of many of the problems that it faces. Tough action has been taken to root out corruption at every level of government.
	We all know about the evils of terrorism in Pakistan, involving various terrorist groups, including the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Pakistan faces the ongoing problems that resulted from the military actions in Afghanistan against the former Soviet Union, and the more recent military action after which nearly 2 million people went into Pakistan as refugees. That is Pakistan's responsibility, and it is to the country's credit that it has—with very little help from any other organisation in the world—housed, fed and done everything possible to support those refugees.
	As a further example of what is happening in Pakistan, elections for the national assembly took place on 10 October last year. Out of more than 70 million registered voters, over 29 million voted. The assembly met on 16 November last year and was in session until 22 April this year. Several parties were elected to the assembly, including three major parties. There is clearly a move to parliamentary democracy in Pakistan.
	Recently, President Musharraf made an official visit to the UK. He met many senior politicians, including the Prime Minister. He also met the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, and I am told—I am not a member of the Committee—that a frank discussion took place between the President and members of the Committee. After that meeting, the President spoke to a well-attended meeting of the all-party Pakistan group. He was frank and honest with us, and explained the problems that he faces. He also spoke of his commitment to govern Pakistan with the help of members of the national assembly and the people of Pakistan, and to see that the move to parliamentary democracy continues. The President then went to Washington, where he had several meetings with President Bush.
	The meetings in London and Washington are clear signs that Pakistan is being accepted by the world—and rightly so—as it returns to parliamentary democracy. The need to encourage the return to parliamentary democracy and the introduction of many other reforms, for which the President readily accepts the need, is so important that the all-party Pakistan group believes that it is essential to grant the country a return to full membership of the Commonwealth. The UK, while not a member of the group that will make that decision, has enormous influence on it. I know that because as the chairperson of the United Kingdom Commonwealth Parliamentary Association branch, I meet Heads of Commonwealth countries regularly and chat about many issues. I know the respect and influence that this country has in the Commonwealth, and that is why I have sought to raise this important issue today.

Bob Spink: As a result of bad odours in south Essex, residents have felt great anger and fear. People's quality of life has been severely damaged, and many have reported serious health consequences. Therefore, the Yellow Advertiser ran a campaign and a coupon petition. Many residents wrote in and, as a result of the campaign and the information about their experience, several recommendations were put forward, which I will now summarise for the House.
	The first recommendation was to establish funding and support for 24-hour testing of air quality by general circulation models, strategically placed to monitor areas around Pitsea landfill, BP Coryton and other key sites. BP has agreed to install its own monitors, but only for the first three months. The second is to ensure that all information is passed to the Environment Agency and made public within 14 days via the agency's website, so the public know what is going on if it happens again in the future. Experience has shown that the Environment Agency has in the past relied solely on air quality data and notification of breaches supplied by the very operators that it is supposed to be regulating. This so-called self-regulation is not economic for the Environment Agency; there is an obvious conflict of interest and it is not an effective way to monitor possible offenders.
	Thirdly, the analysis and testing on samples of emissions taken at Pitsea in May this year by Golder Associates should continue until irrefutable evidence that they pose no threat to health is available to the public on the Environment Agency's website. Fourthly, if any possible health risks are identified, all appropriate legal action must be pursued against the offender. That has not been done, even though there have been smells for seven months.
	Fifthly, under current legislation, environmental health departments are unable to take action of any kind against offenders polluting the environment from a neighbouring district or borough. The Pitsea tip is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), although the smells mostly impact on my constituents who live next door to the tip. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his great campaigning efforts on this matter.
	The problem has meant that Castle Point borough council's environmental health department has been unable to bring any action against Cleanaway, the pit operator, even though the smells have caused serious health problems—that has not been refuted—for several months. Although it is accepted that the Environment Agency has that responsibility, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should investigate the matter with a view to preventing a culture of buck passing. That has been the greatest and most persistent complaint that residents have made to me and the Yellow Advertiser over the past six months.
	Sixthly, through the Yellow Advertiser, residents asked Ministers to investigate how the Environment Agency deals with bad smells in the future with a view to developing a protocol of proactive guidelines to regulate how it investigates and pursues any reoccurrence of the problem. That will avoid the trial-and-error approach that was adopted at Pitsea from February 2003. That led to a haphazard and, ultimately, longer remedial process, and therefore much longer suffering for the residents of Castle Point than was necessary.
	For example, if the Environment Agency receives 10 or more complaints of odours that are accompanied by reports from doctors of possible health symptoms within a 24-hour period, GCMs testing should be deployed to pinpoint the source and to identify the compounds present at the earliest possible moment so that action can follow and the public can be reassured rather than left unduly concerned for six months, as happened this year.
	The Environment Agency did not test the emissions despite numerous reports of stinging eyes, choking, nausea, inability to sleep, headaches and even a death from asthma on a playing field close to the tip. Instead, it relied on archaic wind direction reports and physical smell checks to pinpoint the source. In today's technological world, that is just not good enough. It amounts to a "Dad's Army" type farce, and is both incompetent and unacceptable.
	I congratulate the Yellow Advertiser on its superb and public-spirited campaign, with Steve Neale at the helm. The newspaper did a great job looking after the public interest.
	I turn now to the Government's attack on communities through their policies for post offices, chemists, police stations and, indeed, fire stations and retained fire officers. In particular, however, I shall consider post offices. There are 11 million pensioners and 5 million of them collect their money from post offices and 1 million of them do not have bank or building society accounts. They do not want to deal with banks; they fear that as they are anxious about PIN numbers and technology. The Government's policy has not been thought through. They are driving post offices out of business, and that shows a callous attitude towards the elderly people who put the "Great" in Britain. They created the wealth of this country, but do not get a fair share of it. Retired people deserve better.
	The Government must have a cooling-off period in which to make it much clearer to everyone that they can be exempt from the changes if they so wish and can remain exempt for as long as they wish. The Government should promote and not damage post office accounts.
	Let me give an example from the mail that I have received during the past two weeks. Mr. K.S. of Canvey Island wrote to me saying that he had decided to apply to have his pension paid into a Post Office account. He said:
	"A welcome pack duly arrived with an information leaflet containing at least six reasons why I should go to a Bank or building society rather than my chosen course. One of these was that the administrator of this scheme disclaimed any liability for any discrepancies or failure to pay money into my new account, very reassuring!"
	He continued:
	"since this government have been in power it has become increasingly obvious that the general public and the pensioners in particular are being treated with complete contempt".
	I put that matter to one side and turn to the European Union. On 14 July, I asked the Government how many regulations originating from the EU have been implemented by the Cabinet Office in each of the past five years. The Government replied that the average figure was 2,800. That is costing business an enormous amount. The British Chambers of Commerce says that there is too much regulation. It claims that the situation destroys jobs and the economy, undermines investment in this country and removes our competitive advantage, especially over continental Europe. Such regulation runs alongside massive business tax hikes and 60 stealth tax rises, so the Labour Government are leading the country toward a high tax and low wealth generation economy. They are taking the "Great" out of Britain.
	It is time for us to consider the common agricultural policy again—it was past its time some 20 years ago. The policy is too costly, it damages international development and it is holding back enlargement, which would improving security on continental Europe. The control and subsidy of agriculture in this country should be repatriated to this country for the benefit of our farmers, all British consumers, our environment and the developing international community.

Mark Tami: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in the debate. The League Against Cruel Sports recently made me aware of welfare concerns surrounding greyhound racing. I am not an opponent of the sport. Indeed, I have attended many events, although I always manage to leave them with less money than when I started.
	I was unaware—like many hon. Members, I am sure—of the industry's problems until recently. Thousands of dogs go missing each year after their racing careers have ended, as do thousands of puppies that do not make the grade required to race. There are worries about what happens when dogs are racing. We should examine issues such as the size of tracks and the treatment that dogs receive in kennels.
	I emphasise again that neither the League Against Cruel Sports nor I think that the sport is inherently cruel, unlike hunting with dogs. I do not advocate a ban on the sport, but real issues must be addressed. Reform is required, and the ideal tool with which to achieve reform is the animal welfare Bill that we expect to be published in draft later this year.
	As long ago as 1990, the Home Affairs Committee conducted an inquiry into the greyhound racing industry. Although the report concentrated on the financing of the industry, it made reference to animal welfare concerns, especially the problem of re-homing dogs. The Committee recommended that track owners and bookmakers should be required to donate part of their profits to the Retired Greyhound Trust. It is a great shame that, some 13 years later, that has still not happened.
	As hon. Members may be aware, the greyhound racing industry is extremely lucrative. For example, the Walthamstow track has an annual turnover in excess of £8 million. Many greyhound stadiums are set to apply for casino status under the proposed gambling Bill, so the tracks will probably become more profitable. There is no doubt that there is a lot of money in the business, but a miniscule percentage of the money bet on greyhound racing goes toward the welfare of the dogs. That is pitiful and a great shame. I support the league's campaign to give a penny in the pound of gambling turnover to the welfare of the dogs. They deserve more than that, in my opinion.
	There are welfare concerns about the greyhounds before their careers begin. About 5,500 are bred for racing each year across the country. Many of them sell for more than £1,000. Some 2,000 of the puppies, however, never make it to the tracks; they just disappear. The same problem occurs in Ireland on a much greater scale. We have to assume the worst and accept that they are not all humanely put to sleep by vets. Licensing greyhound breeders is a way to address that problem. All puppies could be registered at birth and the statistics published in full. That would avoid the misery experienced by thousands of puppies that go missing each year, many of which are killed in a less than humane way.
	There is also the massive problem of re-homing retired greyhounds after their racing careers have ended. That is mainly due to lack of provision. Some 10,000 greyhounds retire from British greyhound racing each year. Most of them are untraceable. Only about 2,000 a year are known to be re-homed by welfare groups, including the Retired Greyhound Trust. That figure is extremely worrying. A strategy clearly needs to be put in place so that every dog is re-homed, not just the 20 per cent. that are currently re-homed.
	Although greyhound owners should accept responsibility for their dogs, so must the industry. Contrary to popular belief, greyhounds are suitable as pets. I am sure that many owners keep their dogs after they finish racing. However, that is perhaps not the case for the majority. Once the dogs start to cost their owners money instead of making them money, the owners are tempted with a quick way out of the tie of keeping the dog. We must address that.
	There are also concerns about the dogs' welfare during their racing careers. That is sometimes difficult to detect, but some conditions in which the dogs run damage their health and welfare. Dogs frequently have to run around very tight bends or run with minor injuries. Track surfaces are often the cause of concern, with too hard or too soft surfaces causing injury to the dogs. Paddy Sweeney, Britain's best known greyhound vet, argues that tracks should have a larger radius to enable the greyhounds to run upright so that their joints are not strained by the centrifugal force exerted on them when they run around tight bends. The suggested recommendation is that all new tracks should have a radius of at least 80 m.
	Track vets are employed by racing promoters, which means that they may come under pressure not to pull dogs out of races if they are injured. Clearly, we cannot generalise about the standards of the vets employed in the industry, and I am sure that they are of the highest quality. I merely explain that they may come under pressure to make the "right" decision. Perhaps the solution is for an independent body to employ the vet, who would have full rights to stop races and/or withdraw dogs if they are unfit to race. Vets are solely there to look after the welfare of the dogs. It is also necessary to have fixed minimum standards at track kennels. I remember reading about the dog Football Focus, which died in track kennels at Catford last year owing to the lack of air conditioning. We must prevent accidents like that occurring.
	The greyhound industry does not protest about the lack of funding for welfare. Both the British Greyhound Racing Board and the National Greyhound Racing Club were invited to make a submission to the consultation on the animal welfare Bill. Neither thought it sufficiently important to respond. The Department for Culture Media and Sport has spoken to the industry about greyhound welfare and recognises that there is room for improvement.
	In May 2002, the greyhound industry signed up to the charter of racing greyhounds. Although that is welcome, it is not binding and does not by any means cover all the issues that need to be addressed, especially the employment of independent vets. The league's idea of a penny in the pound for greyhound welfare has a great deal of merit. That would take the form of a statutory levy, similar to the one in the horse-racing industry. The provision would enable homes to be found for the 12,000 dogs that are surplus to requirements every year and could also go towards grants to upgrade tracks and kennels. It could even enable the micro-chipping of dogs so that they can be monitored and so that the circumstances surrounding those that go missing can be properly investigated.
	The animal welfare Bill that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will introduce will provide an ideal opportunity to address this issue. I urge right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to support that measure. It is a long-awaited Bill that will provide the necessary means to reform the industry of greyhound racing by making better provision for greyhounds, upon whose welfare the industry relies, and ensure its continued success, which I am sure we all want.

Richard Younger-Ross: I shall touch on two issues in my 10-minute slot, which I shall try not to use in full. The first issue has already been mentioned, and that is Iraq. The number of speeches on Iraq indicates that Members wish to see the issue debated fully and properly. Perhaps there is a need for a cross-cutting Question Time on the matter, given that a number of different Departments are dealing with restructuring and humanitarian aid. There are serious questions to be asked, and some confusion has arisen from Ministers' answers. A debate would give us the opportunity to resolve that confusion.
	I shall give an example. On 25 June, the Prime Minister told the House that the Iraqis were being disarmed. It was clear by implication that they were being entirely disarmed. Having been to Iraq with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) at the beginning of June, I knew that the Prime Minister's answer was not fully correct. I asked the Ministry of Defence the same question: what was being done to disarm the Iraqis? The answer was slightly different from that of the Prime Minister. I was told that they were being allowed to hold on to non-automatic rifles and small arms. Again, that is not a fully correct answer. I was told clearly on two occasions by British commanders while I was in Iraq that they were allowing Iraqis to hold on to automatic weapons for their self-defence. Some clarity is required.
	We need a debate. We also need a Question Time that will enable us to get answers from the Government. I have written to the Prime Minister on that issue and I am still waiting for a reply. It will not come this side of the recess; I suppose that it could be waiting in my pigeonhole, but I doubt it.
	A number of other issues arose while we went round with the different battle groups. A huge number of munitions are lying around on the ground. It is horrifying. The Iraqi third army used metal containers as ammunition dumps. These containers are scattered across the desert, and little is being done to clear them up. The poverty of a number of tribal groups is such that children are being sent into the containers to take munitions out of wooden boxes so that they can be burned to boil water. Water has to be boiled because there is no clean water supply. At one location, mortar shells were scattered on the ground, the wooden boxes having been removed.
	The poverty is such that the metals that make the shells have a value on the black market. Children are taking the shells back to their families, so that the shells can be taken apart and the metals sold on the black market. It is not surprising that a number of children have lost their lives doing this. The Army is doing what it can to advise and warn parents. It has a poster campaign. It is doing the best that it can with the resources at its disposal to clear up the munitions. However, it does not have sufficient resources.
	An electricity supply is necessary so that water can be boiled by that means. The electricity system was installed by the Russians. Some power stations were damaged during the first Gulf war, and they have not been repaired since. Some power stations are running at only 10 or 20 per cent. of their capacity. The system is interlinked so that different power stations have to be online before there can be a supply. I have asked why the Russians are not there helping to rebuild their power stations. They put them in and they understand them. However, they are not there. Serious questions need to be asked. Why are we not engaging the Russians in the rebuilding of the power station system?
	The Army is doing all that it can to provide and maintain a water supply. Damage is being done to the water supply, and more needs to be done to maintain it, not by the Army but by the Department for International Development, other Departments and the UN. It is frustrating that British soldiers constantly have to repair electrical cables and the water supply when their primary task should be security and maintaining law and order. To put it bluntly, there are not enough non-governmental organisations to do the work, and there is not enough aid from the Government.
	I shall touch on two final issues to do with Iraq. First, we visited a doctor's surgery. It had been looted at the end of the conflict and everything was taken. The Army had done a wonderful job, because it arranged for builders to put new doors and locks on, and made arrangements to help with the restocking. The UN had provided some drugs, and the surgery also had some shelves. From its limited budget, the Army provided a refrigerator to keep drugs at the right temperature, but essential items were missing from the pharmacy. I was given a list, by the lady doctor in charge, of the basic equipment that was required, including an autoclave, a baravan, stethoscopes, a water cooler, air conditioning so that drugs could be kept for longer, bandages, and simple chairs and tables. Why, several weeks after the end of the conflict, was more not being done to make sure that those essential items for the running of a medical centre were provided?
	Secondly, I asked DFID what we were doing to help restore the banking system, which is in chaos. However, I have to say that when I worked in Iraq in 1982, the banking system was in chaos—the exchange rate at the bank was very different from what it was on the black market. The Army has had to provide help to establish and run the bank in Basra. The Army has many tasks and talents, but running banks is not one of which I am aware. However, it is doing what it can to try to provide stability. When DFID says that it is doing nothing to help the banking system, I despair, because we ought to be doing something to help it. Getting it running properly is essential to the economy. I therefore hope that the Government will give us more time to debate those important issues.
	I shall touch briefly on another issue on which I have been trying to press the Government for answers—the present status of general development orders. The Government are currently reviewing the planning structure, but nothing is going to be done about general development orders, which allow dock companies, railway companies and airports to build what they like on their land, provided that it has something to do with the running of the port, airport or the railway line. Those developments can have a dramatic impact on people who live close to them. Railtrack is currently putting up mobile phone masts along the length of its tracks. No planning consent is required—it can just build them. Local people fear that, once those structures are up, if Railtrack applies for commercial use it will be hard for inspectors to refuse such an application. The structures are already in place, so it would be illogical for inspectors to turn down that application and say, "You've got a structure, but don't use it." Many communities fear that unsightly phone masts are being constructed for commercial use at a later date.
	I shall give an example in my constituency, which includes Teignmouth port. I wish it every success, but it has the right to build whatever it likes on the quay. A few years ago, it took down its old sheds and built a new one. Someone standing in their front garden in Alexander terrace can see a short bit of road—it is about the same length as the distance between the Government and Opposition Benches—then a railway line and another bit of road, with a tin shed along half its length which is about as high as the lower part of the Chamber. The railway track runs between the tin wall and the houses, and the tin wall acts as an echo chamber. No environmental consideration was given to its construction. If there had been a normal planning process, no one would have allowed such a structure to be built, creating such environmental damage. We need to review general development orders. I am not suggesting that they should be part of the normal local authority planning process, but something needs to be done to impose some control on what is allowed to be built by our ports and airports. At present, they can build what they like.

Ann Cryer: On Monday I received a helpful response to a question that I had tabled to the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration. I want to share the information with other Members, and I hope it will be passed on to their constituents to whom it applies.
	My question was:
	"when the two-year probationary period to qualify for indefinite leave to remain will come into force."
	The reply from the Minister stated:
	"The two-year probationary period on marriage was introduced as one of a number of changes made to the Immigration Rules in 1 April 2003.
	The changes were part of a package of measures to tackle the growing menace of fraudulent or abusive marriages to circumvent immigration control."
	For hon. Members who do not deal with such cases, I should explain that over the past six years I have dealt with about 40 cases of young women who were not forced into marriage, but went along willingly with the arrangements made by their parents to marry a young first cousin in Pakistan. They went over to Pakistan to marry him and subsequently came back and applied to act as a sponsor to bring the young husband to the UK. He came here, and shortly before the year was out, the young lady would apply for indefinite leave to remain for him.
	What happened in about 40 cases that came to my attention was that as soon as the young men received their indefinite leave to remain, they left their wife and went to live with the extended family. Sometimes the girls would be pregnant by that time and would be extremely upset. Their parents were extremely upset because they had arranged the marriage. The girl would come to me and say, "I want him deported", and I had to say, "I'm sorry, you've just applied for him to have indefinite leave to remain. There is nothing that I or the Government can do. He is going to stay. He has his indefinite leave to remain."
	The change is that the man cannot have indefinite leave to remain for two years. It is not much of a concession, but it will help to deter young men who were planning to come to the UK and get round immigration controls. The Government could probably go further. Often the young men go back to Pakistan, meet up with the young lady whom they would have married in any case, go through a marriage in Pakistan, come back and apply to act as a sponsor to bring the Pakistani young lady over as their wife. They are entitled to do that. They have indefinite leave to remain, so they can apply to act as a sponsor.
	The situation would be helped and the young men would be deterred from doing that if a further measure were introduced by law specifying that they had to have citizenship before becoming a sponsor. That would take about five years from entering the country. It would deter the young men from putting those young ladies through a terrible experience. Having done all they could to make for a good marriage, the girls are cast to one side in favour of a woman whose marriage to the man had probably already been arranged.
	I shall mention two other changes that were made on 1 April. A further measure was
	"introducing a 'no switching' into marriage provision after entry to the United Kingdom for those coming for a short period of six months or less".—[Official Report, 14 July 2003; Vol. 409, c. 54W.]
	That means that those who have come to the country on visitors' visas cannot suddenly and conveniently find a wife in order to get indefinite leave to remain.
	The other measure prevents someone from acting as a sponsor in a marriage or fiancée application until the prospective spouse is 18. Personally, I would prefer the age 21 to be specified, but 18 is very welcome. The measure will protect girls from being forced into marriage and taken back to Pakistan for that purpose when they are aged 15 or 16. It will ensure that their parents will know in advance that they cannot act as sponsors until the girl is 18, so they will probably not trouble to take her back until they are 18 to go through the procedure of arranging a marriage and acting as sponsors.
	That measure will help many girls. I believe that most of the girls who are forced into marriage are very young and are aged 15, 16 or 17. If they can mature that little bit more, until they are 18, they will have a much better chance of taking on their parents in an argument and saying, "I do not mind having an arranged marriage, but I do not want to go back to Pakistan to marry this particular person." I think that the measure will help a great deal.
	It would also be a good idea to apply such an age limit to people applying to come to the United Kingdom, so that when someone is acting as a sponsor for a young person from Pakistan, Bangladesh or wherever else, that young person would also have to be 18 to enter the country—although, in my view, 21 might be a better age. Such a measure would make a big difference to many young women such as those whom I have helped. Many of them were brought over as a spouse, sometimes when they were as young as 15—their passports were often changed—after which they were unceremoniously dumped by their husband and their in-laws. In such situations, I am left to pick up the pieces, along with the Home Office. By and large, almost every case involves some measure of domestic violence, so we can use the domestic violence concession. I appreciate that concession, which I think was a brilliant idea. It saves a lot of girls from unnecessary suffering.
	All those measures represent tinkering around the edges. I appreciate what the Home Office has done so far, but I believe that the solution to all these problems would be for Asian parents to arrange marriages for their sons and daughters within the settled community. None the less, I hope that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will convey my gratitude and that of my female Asian constituents to the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration.

Andrew Murrison: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer).
	We have heard some tremendous contributions today. In particular, I should like to associate myself with the remarks made about the Royal Hospital Haslar by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). I served at the Royal Hospital Haslar, and in my opinion, its demise has been the final nail in the coffin of the Defence Medical Services. Ministers should be under no illusion: the Defence Medical Services are a central part of our defensive capability. They are in a truly dreadful state and the situation must be addressed as a matter of urgency. I have to tell the Minister that the new centre for defence medicine at Selly Oak has not been well received by those who serve in the Defence Medical Services. It was a sad day indeed when the Royal Hospital Haslar, with all its potential, finally met its end.
	It was also a great pleasure to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), some of which I agree with and some of which I disagree with. GM is an emerging technology, but the next one will undoubtedly be nanotechnology. Last week, I led a debate on that subject in Westminster Hall, but the response that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), was less than comprehensive. I have written to him in the hope that he might revisit the Hansard record and address the points that I put to him.
	In particular, we need to know where we are going with the debate on nanotechnology, because I fear the some of the mistakes that were made in relation to the GM public debate might be repeated in that context. I hope that we will have learned lessons from that—especially in relation to the wisdom, or lack of it, of having the public debate before the full evidence was available to present to the public. That is a topsy-turvy way of proceeding. I hope that we do not repeat that mistake when we deal publicly, as we must, with the next emerging technology—nanotechnology.
	During the summer, we will see the last days of community health councils. That worries many hon. Members; some of us argued in Committee that it was folly. I pay tribute to the work of the community health councils that have served my constituents for more than a quarter of a century. I feel strongly that CHCs represented a good foundation on which to build, and I fear that after their demise our constituents will suffer from a lack of representation at that level. They have been valuable to me personally as a constituency MP in advising me of the feelings of people locally on health issues; they will be sorely missed.
	We have not covered health greatly in this summer Adjournment debate; that is strange, given that health is probably the No. 1 priority of most of our constituents—certainly, my mailbag suggests that that is the case. I pay tribute to the Government for being able to spend historically large sums of money on health. I equally pay tribute to their predecessor for providing the economy necessary to achieve that spend. We should never fool ourselves that we can get health care on the cheap. Spending is relatively easy: it should not be considered a proxy for achieving the good health care that we all want for our constituents. The tricky bit is achieving the health outcomes that Britons have the right to expect. In that context, it is disingenuous to talk euphemistically of investment when we really mean spending. Words mean what words say, and it is important, in the context of health, to talk of spending, not to assume that spending equals an investment that will produce a return.
	Spending on health services increased in real terms by 22 per cent. at the turn of the century, but hospital activity went up by just 1.6 per cent. Indeed, by their own deeply flawed star rating measures, the Government are failing, despite their largesse. Only this week, we heard that the number of zero star rated trusts has increased and that the performance of ambulance services has gone down. Those statistics come with a health warning, because one cannot realistically expect a 22 per cent. rise in spend to produce a straight-line proportionate increase in activity of anything like 22 per cent., let alone a 22 per cent. increase in health outcomes: the marginal utility is manifestly much less. I suggest, however, that it should be significantly greater than 1.6 per cent.
	It is our duty to ask what has gone wrong. Part of the answer clearly lies in public sector inflation running at 5.3 per cent. There is a whole raft of reasons for that, including salary costs, national insurance, pensions and the use of expensive agency staff. Health service inflation outstrips just about every other form of inflation. Despite rationing by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which has contained costs to some extent, the cost of drugs and medical devices is set to rocket.
	Less obvious to outsiders would be the fact that many people are in the wrong jobs—non-productive jobs or jobs where the product is obscure. When I was in the Royal Navy, we reached the tipping point at which the number of admirals exceeded the number of ships afloat. It seems that we have reached that point in the NHS, with the number of bureaucrats exceeding the number of beds. That is nothing to be proud of. Allied with that is an incomprehensible budgetary framework in which health care managers are encouraged to spend in a short-term way—to adopt a "spend now or lose it" mentality. That has spawned a great range of jobs with no obvious purpose, as The Sunday Times rather unkindly highlighted at the weekend when it referred to what it described as rubbish jobs being thrown at a perceived public need, with little thought about what they would achieve in terms of outcomes.
	So it is that between 1997 and 2002 the number of doctors and nurses went up by 15 per cent., but the number of administrators soared by 46 per cent. Many of those managerial jobs do good things—there is no denying that—but surely that deployment of our 22 per cent. uplift in resources at the turn of the century would have been better spent on health care staff who are directly involved in a hands-on way with patients. My Select Committee found that tens of million of pounds had been lost to the system—we had no idea where tens of millions of pounds had gone under the NHS cancer plan. Nobody appears to have accounted for it let alone had any idea about what positive outcomes it had produced. That is hopeless.
	Last week, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the data on which he was relying for his comparison by 2005 of EU spend and UK spend on health care were weighted or unweighted, projected or static, or whether they were based on the Office for National Statistics' newly computed data, which involve heath care spend by a raft of organisations outwith the NHS—charities, churches, nursing homes and so on. He addressed the first point honestly and said that it was weighted. On the other two, he was obscure, so we have to make our own conclusions on that.
	Government spending on health care and education centrally seems to sit uneasily with the deficits that we see locally in our schools and hospitals. That is a great concern in my area, where the strategic health authority has a huge deficit—almost insurmountable, I would suggest—which it is being told to get on with sorting out itself, with little assistance, it seems, from the centre. How much worse will that get when local, apparently accountable and democratic governing bodies sit and are responsible for these budgets? I suspect that Ministers will rusticate responsibility even more.
	It is glib and dishonest to say that the increase in spending must go hand in hand with reform without a clear vision of what that reform means. Somewhere along the way, the Government have lost the plot, and our constituents' health expectations are the poorer for it.

Tony McWalter: The principal topic with which I am going to deal this afternoon—I shall speak briefly, in case you have the chance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to fit in two other speakers—is a riveting one: multi-agency working. Some Members will be surprised to hear me use such an expression, because even the expression "new Labour" has yet to pass my lips. To speak in the language of it might therefore seem strange.
	Multi-agency working, however, is basically quite a good idea. It says that what we must do is get different people—social services, local borough councils, the police service, the probation service and everyone else who might have some share of a problem—to work together rather than carve it up so that each does their different thing and nothing much joins together. My experience, however, is that we have a long way to go. I want the Government to consider seriously whether, when it is clear that multiple agencies need to be involved in a problem, we should try to get somebody to take lead responsibility for it.
	Let me give an example from my constituency. I was approached by two very worried parents, both aged over 70 and frail in health, the mother suffering from cancer. They were the parents of someone whom I will call Joe Bloggs. Joe was in prison and about to come out. He had been given a two-and-a-half year sentence but was being let out on licence after a year and a half. He had been a heroin addict and was clean. I discovered that he was going to come out a week before he did so because his parents simply did not know to whom to turn. As Members of Parliament, we can get access to a lot of people whom others cannot normally get hold of, so when his parents came to see me, I was able to speak to the governor of the prison, the chief probation officer, the head of social services, and someone at the housing department. I spent a week doing all that, but at the end of it all, this man was coming out of prison clean, but with no prospect at all of remaining so.
	The man's parents were told that there were two possible arrangements for when he came out of prison. The first was that no one would meet him; the second was that they could meet him. However, they were very frail and upset, their grandchildren often stayed with them in their house, and there was no way that someone who needed that level of care and attention could be looked after at home. So, in the end, I agreed to do it. I got up at 5.45 am and went to the prison with the parents. I had made all the arrangements. The prison then told us that he would be released at 9 am. At 10.30 am, he finally emerged, so we had already lost an hour and a half out of the day in which we could have been trying to solve his problem.
	I then took him to his home, where his parents helped him in various ways. I wanted the bond between him and his parents to be established before I moved him on, because he would otherwise have thought that they did not care. He also needed to know, however, that it was impossible for his parents to look after him. He understood that, and we left his home and went to the probation office. The probation office is meant to be the lead agency for someone on licence, but the probation officer in charge of the case was a probationer himself, so it went to another probation officer.
	Three days before the man came out of prison, I had to tell the probation office that this prisoner had cerebral palsy. "Oops!", they said, "Sorry, we didn't know that he was disabled. That's a different category." I thought that we might now be able to get some help. The ex-prisoner was determined to get the help that people who have been drug addicts need. He was also determined not to come back to Hemel Hempstead, where all his old contacts were. After four hours in the probation office, I had to go off and see another constituent for a couple of hours—someone who was dying—and when I got back on the case, I found that the first thing that they had done when I left was to phone his frail, elderly parents to say, "Come and get him." His parents went to get him from the probation office—luckily they were able to drive there—and they brought him away. Finally, I saw him again that evening established in a house in which it was absolutely clear that he would be dragged back into his drug habit in no time at all.
	The probation office did not even know the phone number of social services. The local borough council housing department had had a dispute with the man about the rent from the last time that he had lived there, and even though his parents had cancelled his tenancy, it had not been cancelled. The whole business was surrounded by utter incompetence. There was nobody to say, "He's my case. I'll try to see this through." Unless we have a lead agent for this sort of case, the only thing that people like this will be able to do is to go back on the street and start robbing. This guy was a pusher, and very well known in the area, but he wanted to get off the drugs. But in the end, the whole system, with dozens of people being paid very high salaries, could make absolutely nothing happen. I ask the House to consider whether we are ever going to get things right unless we can appoint a lead agent in these cases to take responsibility for people like that.

John Barrett: I shall try to be brief and concise in the one minute that I have in which to speak.
	I should like to concentrate on two issues that will be of concern to many of my constituents over the summer recess. One is the mis-selling of travel insurance. An awful lot of people going on holiday this summer will have been the subject of mis-selling. They will come back from their holidays to find that they do not have proper insurance because a number of the major travel agencies will have hoodwinked them into accepting their own insurance without having established pre-existing conditions; that will invalidate their cover. This problem should be covered when the Government consider extending regulation of the insurance industry.
	When we return in September, we will be only a few weeks away from the introduction of the new pension credit system. That subject was raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson). It will be in the spotlight. A large number of pensioners live below the Government's poverty line: 22 per cent. of pensioners—2 million in total—still live in poverty. Some £2 billion of pension benefits are unclaimed, and 32 per cent. of pensioners who are eligible do not claim the minimum income guarantee; that includes 11,000 pensioners in my constituency and some 87,000 pensioners in Scotland.
	I fear that what will happen when the pension credit comes in will be similar to what happened with the workings of the child tax credit system earlier this year. Two million callers were abandoned when they phoned the helpline. I shall not repeat the arguments that have been put, but the Government have an opportunity to establish a proper infrastructure to deal with this scheme. We have an ageing population, and we must help people who are going into retirement. Frustration has been felt on both sides of the House, because the Government have been too timid and have not properly addressed some of the problems that pensioners will face in the near future, especially with the introduction of the pension credit.
	There are a number of issues that we have to deal with, but there is no time to mention them all. I believe that the Government would be well advised to deal with the problem of the mis-selling of travel insurance and the problems that will arise with the introduction of the pension credit.

David Cameron: It is a great pleasure to respond to the debate on behalf of the Opposition. It has been an incredibly wide-ranging debate—so wide-ranging that I should refer to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests just in case. We have covered the field, on subjects such as Iraq, the pension credit, telecommunications, the House of Lords, Cyprus, Mount Vernon hospital, golf courses, air transport and broadband.
	The summer Adjournment debate is important. We can write to Ministers during the recess, but this is the last opportunity to get points on record. It is regrettable that a number of Members have not been able to speak. I suggest to the Deputy Leader of the House that these Adjournment debates should have a time limit on speeches but let the debate run on, because it would not be too painful if we went on for a further half an hour and all missed our trains to our constituencies. At least everyone would have a chance to speak.
	I make a plea to the Deputy Leader of the House to pass on to the relevant Ministers the points raised by hon. Members for an answer. I spoke in one of these debates about a social services issue. I waited patiently in my constituency for an answer, but answer came there none. I had to get in touch with the Department myself.
	I will not add to the list of issues that have been raised, but I want to make the point that we have not had a chance to discuss in the House the desperate situation of the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund. Payments to a charity in my constituency have been suspended, and I suspect that the same applies to many charities in other constituencies. I hope that the Government will keep their eye on that issue.
	We heard excellent contributions, starting with the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). She spoke about road accidents and sleep disorders. Those subjects are not often raised in the House, so it was good to put those points on the record. I respect her proud and consistent record on Iraq. I do not agree with her, but the questions that she asked about the source that the United Kingdom Government used for making the statement about uranium sourced from Niger will not go away. The many contributions on Iraq point to the fact that further debates will be not only welcome, but essential.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) made a wise, comprehensive and passionate speech about Tibet, which is also topical, given the Prime Minister's forthcoming tour. As my hon. Friend said, real negotiations between the Chinese and the Tibetan Government in exile are needed. He made the powerful point that we should not reward violent groups: we should reward non-violence. The Dalai Lama has been the apogee of non-violence.
	The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) made a wide-ranging speech. He talked about transport in Cheshire and Cheshire county council. He made a particular point about special schools. He obviously knows what he is talking about, having worked in that field. He made a powerful point. Those of us who have residential special schools in our constituencies value them, but they are often not valued by the county council. I am not sure that that is political; I think it is to do with the trend towards inclusion in education in all circumstances. I hope that the hon. Gentleman succeeds in his campaign. He mentioned Halton hospital, and I agree that in the national health service small is often beautiful.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) made what I hope he will not mind my describing as a familiar speech. It was no less powerful for that. He has been vigorous in defending the royal hospital Haslar, which, as he said, is the only defence hospital left in the United Kingdom. He spoke of the difficulties of retaining staff, and pointed out that it was not just a question of pay. It was a question of institutions that people care about, and want to work in. He referred to "super-hospitals", as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). We must ask ourselves whether staff value working in those as much as they value working in smaller institutions that they know and love.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport also mentioned the Daedalus site for asylum seekers at Lee-on-the-Solent. Like others today, he demonstrated the power of pinning Ministers down with parliamentary questions. I agree with him that while any asylum and immigration system will have its disadvantages, one advantage of a quota system with more offshore processing is that it would rid us of the problem of where to site asylum centres.
	The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) was one of many speakers who had apparently been unable to catch Mr. Speaker's eye during debates on Iraq. Many of us were in the same position, yet we were deluged with letters, advice and e-mails from constituents. We wanted to show that we had listened before reaching our own judgments. I supported the hon. Lady's judgment: she was sceptical but supportive, deploring war but recognising that it was sometimes essential, praising the United Nations route but recognising that the French veto made the war inevitable. I thought her speech powerful. She lost me when she moved on to the European constitution and not having a referendum, but found me again when she dealt with regional government. Two out of three is not bad.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood talked about the cancer and burns unit at Mount Vernon hospital in Northwood. He has been a doughty fighter for that, as well as for Harefield hospital. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, he pointed out that institutions matter as well as bricks and mortar. It is dreadful when "progress" means the closing of much-loved hospitals.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) spoke about Iraq, and about pensioners. I think we all support what he said about Iraq—"They want their country back"—and the sooner we can deliver that, the better it will be for stability in the region. On the pension credit, he asked for no repeat of the debacle over tax credits. I am sure that we all say, "Hear, hear" to that.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), in what sounded like a winding up of the early part of the debate, rightly said that all speeches about Iraq were very sincere. He told us his own tale about House of Lords reform, describing the long trail of questions that he had asked the Prime Minister, which had led him to conclude that the Prime Minister does not always answer the question. Even after only two and a half years in this place, I must say that my reaction was "Wow!" The hon. Gentleman is sincere about the House of Lords, however. He said that the larger number had voted for the elected options, which is true if we assume that 332 Members voted for them. I hope that he, and the rest of us, will be persistent, and that the Government will try to find a proper solution.
	The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) made a knowledgeable speech about Cyprus. He reminded us of the events that took place 29 years ago, and of the slow progress that has been made towards a settlement. He took a slightly stronger line against Turkey than some of us would want to—many of us feel that Turkey wants to be a European democracy rather than an Islamic state, and that we should be more welcoming—but I respect what he said about Cyprus and the importance of a settlement there.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) produced a rich menu of issues, including the declaration of interests that parish councillors have had to sign. Many Members will have received representations about that. I hope that the Government will listen to those who say that they should try to lighten parish councillors' load and celebrate what they do.
	Like others, my hon. Friend mentioned schools funding. He said that 52 schools in his constituency were in deficit. I do not think we have heard the last of that. It is a pity that the Government are not going to relent, but we hope that things will be better in future years. He also asked about the report on the international year of the mountain, 2002, which we are awaiting. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will give us a commitment on that.
	Appropriately enough on the first day of the Open, the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) spoke about golf courses and the great planning pressures in the south-east and Essex. I am sure that some of us thought how nice it would be to be at the Open, rather than here, and I gather that Justin Rose is doing very well. Those of us with seats in the south-east absolutely understand the hon. Gentleman's point.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) made a very controversial remark when he said that his is the most beautiful constituency in the country. I was going to disagree, as the Cotswolds and west Oxfordshire are far more beautiful, but then I remembered that I am going on holiday to Jura, which I believe is in his constituency. Perhaps we can meet at the top of a pap and discuss this. He also spoke about transport and regional air services, which are desperately needed. I hope that he will be listened to. All of us with rural constituencies will agree with his point about broadband, and will want some of the non-BT, satellite options to be pursued. I hope that the Government listen to that point as well.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who is a doughty fighter for his constituency, raised a range of issues to do with crime. I picked up on the point about his secondary schools having a £400,000 shortfall. That is a huge deficit and I ask the Government to take on this issue.
	The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) made a very knowledgeable speech about genetically modified crops and the danger of super-weeds. I listened to her with great interest—indeed, the great debate on GM has even reached "The Archers". When the House returns, we really must address her point about having a debate on this issue in government time.
	The hon. Member for Tooting (Tom Cox) made a very knowledgeable speech about Pakistan. He mentioned what a good friend to this country President Musharraf has been and that we must press for Pakistan's re-entry into the Commonwealth. I am sure that that message was received by Government Front Benchers.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) spoke about bad odours in south Essex—I hope that I heard him right—and the problems with Pitsea tip. He mentioned buck-passing, and as we all know from our constituency experience in dealing with the Environment Agency, one can often be passed from pillar to post. I hope that the Government will listen to that point.
	The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) discussed greyhound racing and made the important point that a welfare fund for dogs should perhaps be established. I am slightly more sceptical about the concept of licensing and registration for all puppies. If we go back to having dog and cat licences, I wonder where it will end. Soon, we will be licensing hamsters. However, his was a well-thought-through speech on an important subject.
	The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) is an expert on immigration rules and, particularly for those of us who do not have large immigrant populations in our constituencies, it is always good to listen and learn from her. She discussed changing the age that one needs to reach before becoming a sponsor, and ensuring that a sponsor has to be a citizen. Those were positive and constructive contributions to this important subject, and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will pass them on to the Home Office, to see whether they can be looked at in detail.
	The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter)—the man who asked the Prime Minister whether he had a philosophy—now seems to have adopted that philosophy. He referred to multi-agency working, and it is only a matter of time before he starts talking about roll-out, joined-up government and pilots. If he is not careful, he will start talking about "imagineering". He clearly needs a holiday to recover his old Labour credentials, but he makes an important point. On leaving prison, people can fall between the gaps. In the worst cases involving heroin addicts, after drying out in prison, their first fix on coming out is often their last. They are not picked up by the probation service or the various agencies. That is a powerful point.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) was cut off rather cruelly, but his point about the mis-selling of travel insurance was well made and certainly needs to be looked at.
	I end with my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), who spoke about his time at the Royal Hospital Haslar, and about nanotechnology. He is probably one of few in this House who actually understands what nanotechnology is, rather than believing, as Prince Charles does, that it is grey goo. My hon. Friend paid tribute to community health councils and the work that they have done, and I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will pay tribute to their own CHCs, regardless of how they voted on that issue; I certainly pay tribute to mine. He posed one of the great questions that we face. An enormous amount of public money is being spent on public services such as the NHS, and the huge test for the Government—in a way, it is a huge experiment—is whether that will lead to more activity. His figures suggest that so far activity has remained relatively flat. The big test for this Government will be whether that giant tax-and-spend experiment will work. We shall have to wait and see.
	On that note, I wish the House and its members of staff a happy recess, and I look forward to the reply of the Deputy Leader of the House.

Phil Woolas: I start by echoing the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) in saying what an excellent debate this has been. It has been wide ranging, with some 22 contributions from Back Benchers on both sides of the House. The range of subjects has been frankly mind-boggling. We have been to a golf course in the Brain valley that has more than 18 holes. I do not know what they propose to call the bar at that course. Having played 31 holes, I suppose one needs a drink. We have been to hospitals in various parts of the country, and we have been up mountains for the year of the mountain.
	We have had foreign trips, surpassing even those that hon. Members will take in the next eight weeks. We have been to Tibet and Pakistan, stopping for a while in Iraq. We have been to Cyprus via Egypt, coming back to the more familiar territory of parish councils in Bedfordshire. I will come back to those later.
	We have had bad odours in Essex. Out of context, that would look bad for the hon. Member for Castle Point (Mr. Spink), but we understand what he means. We have had fires at Yarl's Wood, abandoned greyhounds and a wide range of topics that I shall try to answer. In response to the hon. Member for Witney, I undertake to ensure that if I cannot answer any questions, we will write to the relevant Secretaries of State. I can inform the House that thanks to the excellent work of the officials in the Office of the Leader of the House, I have been passed notes in answer to points made in the previous recess debate so that we can tie up some loose ends.
	Reference has been made to extending these debates, as we now have the cut-off at 6 o'clock. Perhaps the House would like to consider that. If these debates were open-ended, I suspect that we would be here until 8 September, given the ability of some hon. Members to keep going. This debate is important and obviously we take these matters seriously.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) raised two diverse issue, sleeping disorders and road safety, and her well-known and passionately held views on Iraq. The Government have every intention of maintaining the momentum of the current publicity campaign to promote awareness of driver sleepiness. The campaign started in August 2000 and we are spending just over £1 million annually on it. We continue to look at ways in which we can get the message across. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that treatment available on the NHS of continuous positive airway pressure is often effective in eliminating the disorder. It is important that that is available. I shall come back to the subject of Iraq because several hon. Members mentioned it.
	The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) raised the issue of Tibet and I am sure that he has support on both sides of the House, particularly with regard to the cases he raised, such as the horrific execution of Lobsang Dhondup in Tibet. The Government continually raise the issue of human rights in Tibet with the Chinese Government, most recently on 25 June. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Prime Minister will be visiting Japan. [Interruption.] I apologise. The Prime Minister is going to so many places it is difficult to keep up. He is going to China to raise the issue. He is going to Japan as well, but he will not be raising the issue of human rights in Tibet. Maybe he will; he works many wonders, our Prime Minister.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) spoke passionately about constituency concerns. First, he mentioned the proposed reduction of services at Hartford station—an important link to the mainline and London. I understand that the reason for the change is that that bit of the line is a pinch point, which causes congestion. Proposals are being examined to establish whether the higher performance trains now available—with better acceleration and better braking—will make possible an increased number of calls at the station.
	Secondly, my hon. Friend mentioned Cloughwood school in his constituency. He has close personal knowledge of, and strongly supports, the school, and the school bus services are obviously important. Those are matters for the Cheshire county council, and my hon. Friend is right to raise them in the debate.
	Thirdly, my hon. Friend referred to the Halton hospital. I understand that the strategic health authority supports my hon. Friend's views, and I know that he will campaign vigorously on that matter. I will certainly draw his views to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
	As he does on so many occasions, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) raised the issue of the medical services in the armed forces. I believe that he is a former member of the Royal Air Force and he obviously holds strong views on that matter. He is familiar with the difficulty of reconfiguring the medical defence services. I will certainly chase up the points that he made, particularly in respect of his correspondence with the Minister, and I shall again draw his point of view to the Secretary of State's attention.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Daedalus site, and I understand that an announcement will shortly be made. The responsible Home Office Minister visited the site on 15 May this year, following the announcement in February, and I understand that consideration is currently being given to it. We await an announcement on that important matter.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) talked about Iraq and referendums. If it was two out of three for the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), it must be one out of three for me on this occasion—no, in the light of her views on Iraq, it is two out of three in reality. That shows that we do not always oppose what the Opposition say, simply because the Opposition say it.
	I strongly agree with my hon. Friend's views on the European Union constitution. The Government's position is well known—that the arguments in favour of a referendum on that matter are bogus. The EU Convention is the bringing together of treaties that have been determined in the past. It is interesting to read the views expressed in the press—particularly the pro-federalist press—on the continent, and discover how strongly the constitution is opposed because it is not seen as a federalist document. It is also notable how much the British Government are praised for the skilful negotiation of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
	I have to part company with my hon. Friend on the issue of a referendum for a north-west regional assembly. The Government consulted on the matter and interests were expressed, but we will campaign for a yes vote in the referendum. I do not accept the argument that the regional assembly is a duplication and another tier of bureaucracy. I regard it as another tier of democracy, which devolves bureaucracy from Whitehall closer to the regions. The helpline advice to a constituent in Argyll and Bute to travel 140 miles to the local tax office is a strong argument for regional devolution. The distances in our regions may not be that great, but government closer to the people is better government. I hope that the referendum will result in a positive outcome. My hon. Friend holds strong views on that and divisions will exist within parties and across party lines.
	The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) raised some important points about Mount Vernon and Harefield hospitals, and I know that Members from neighbouring constituencies have also raised those serious issues. There are real concerns about them, but the difficulty that the health authorities have is balancing any damage that change inevitably causes with the future investment in, and development of, services at the other sites involved. The hon. Gentleman made his points clinically, if I may put it like that, and I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is made aware of those views.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) raised several issues. He talked about his views on Iraq, and I am sure that all hon. Members will respect them. His constituents will, I am sure, learn of his contribution today and will also respect him for those strongly held views, which I happen to share. However, I agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that Members on all sides of that argument hold their views sincerely.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the situation of pensioners, and he also referred to the introduction in October of the pension credit. The Government's record on increasing the money paid to pensioners—including the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit, when it is introduced—is greatly welcomed by all pensioners. Hon. Members are right to raise concerns about implementation of the system, and whether it will be simple enough for pensioners to understand, but the Government have listened carefully to those points to ensure a smooth implementation of what will prove to be a step change in provision for pensioners.
	My hon. Friend raised other issues. He is a former telecoms engineer and has much knowledge of the issues relating to the telecoms industry. I have a follow-up document in front of me from the previous time my hon. Friend raised those issues, and I shall draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and ensure that my hon. Friend gets an answer. He also mentioned shipbuilding and the importance to his constituents of the aircraft carrier contract, and Ministers from the Ministry of Defence are well aware of his views on that. He also mentioned the Communications Bill, which I have covered.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall was perhaps called a little earlier than he had hoped, but he made a wide-ranging contribution. He is right to say that the House of Commons could not come to a consensus on the issue of the House of Lords. While all hon. Members can say what the House was against, the Leader of the House and the Government have to determine what the House voted for. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in the effort to abolish the remaining hereditary peers, which is an improvement that we outlined in our manifesto. We want to introduce more independent appointments in the House of Lords to make it more democratic and representative, and I hope that he will support that as progress. It may not go as far as he would like to go, but it is in the right direction.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) raised the issue of Cyprus. He is aware of the Government's policy on the matter and I know that he supports it. I thank him for his work on that issue. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) raised the issue of parish councils and the code of conduct and I will take his points up with the Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We have seen strong work from parish councils and we support them. On the point about the year of the mountain, I have a response from the Government and I will ensure that it is transmitted to the hon. Gentleman.
	Several other hon. Members raised many other issues and I will ensure that they receive responses to the points that they made and the questions that they asked. It has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate. The summer Adjournment comes at a time when our economy is stronger than it has ever been, with record low levels of unemployment, inflation and interest. The Government are in strong heart and they are moving forward with their investment and reform agenda. As Members deliberate over the shorter summer break this year, they will realise that this bumpy month was, in fact, a good time for the Government.
	It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	School Funding

David Heath: I wish to present a petition on behalf of schools throughout Somerset that are desperately concerned about not only the funding crisis this year, but the chronic under-funding of Somerset schools. I entirely agree with its sentiments.
	The petition has been signed by about 1,300 people and has been collected from 59 different schools in my constituency and across Somerset. It states:
	To the House of Commons, The petition of Anne Stephens, on behalf of the schools of Somerset, Declares that the funds allocated do not meet the needs of schools.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons consider a fairer settlement for Somerset children.
	And the Petitioners remain etc.
	It is signed by Anne Stephens, the head teacher of Bruton primary school.
	To lie upon the Table.

Air Quality (South Essex)

Bob Spink: I raised the issue of air quality in south Essex in the 1990s when I was first a Member of Parliament and I raised it again in the first month that I returned to the House in 2001, yet still no proper action has been taken to provide proper monitoring of the problem in south Essex, hence the nightmare of the past five months in my constituency and surrounding areas. People have suffered health and quality-of-life problems because proper action has not been taken. I congratulate the Yellow Advertiser and my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) on their campaign. I have been pleased to be able to join them in fighting on this issue.
	The Yellow Advertiser raised a petition that states:
	To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The Humble Petition of the Yellow Advertiser sheweth.
	That there is great anger and fear in South Essex about the pungent smells emanating from Pitsea Tip and blighting our communities, and residents and visitors wish to register their protest against those smells which have also caused serious health concerns and destroyed whole communities' quality of life.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to take action, through the Environment Agency, to curb the smells, to set up proper monitoring, to establish contingency plans to deal with any further smells and therefore to protect our communities.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
	To lie upon the Table. .

Community Pharmacies

Martin Salter: In common with many other right hon. Members and hon. Members, I have been petitioned by pharmacists and the customers of community pharmacies with a generic petition entitled "Save our pharmacy services".
	The petition states:
	The petition of the residents of Reading
	Declares that the proposals to allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions would undermine the excellent service currently provided by community pharmacists.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons reject proposals to allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	I welcome the Government's statement today that they do not believe that this is the time to move to a fully deregulated system. They therefore intend to move cautiously in the direction recommended by the Office of Fair Trending. I believe that my petitioners would recommend that the Government reject the OFT recommendations entirely.
	To lie upon the Table.

RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

David Amess: I am very grateful to Mr. Speaker for giving me the opportunity to raise the important question of the treatment and care of people who suffer from rheumatoid arthritis. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), is fairly new to his post and I certainly do not expect him to be an expert on this subject. This debate is not an opportunity for me and my colleagues to attack the Government's health policy. Given that all Governments must have priorities, I ask him to find out whether he can nudge rheumatoid arthritis up the list because it is a dreadful disease from which many people suffer.
	Rheumatoid arthritis is a common auto-immune disease that is painful, disabling and progressive. It affects people of all ages including young children and teenagers—I do not think that that is widely understood. It has a mortality rate similar to that of coronary heart disease, diabetes, Hodgkin's disease and stroke, yet unfortunately, by comparison, its treatment is comparatively poorly resourced. The lack of appropriate funding and resources leads to a lack of adequate disease management, which in turn impacts adversely on patients' quality of life. The loss of earnings suffered when people have to stop work because of rheumatoid arthritis has a detrimental financial impact on patients, their families and the wider community.
	Some 42 per cent. of rheumatoid arthritis patients are registered disabled within three years while 80 per cent. become moderately to severely disabled within 20 years of their diagnosis. There were 1.9 million consultations with general practitioners for inflammatory arthritis in 2000, and in 1999–2000, 9.4 million working days were lost in the United Kingdom because of rheumatoid arthritis, which represents £833 million of lost production.
	I pay tribute to Mrs. Ailsa Bosworth, who is the president and founder of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society—NRAS. There is no doubt that without her determination, rheumatoid arthritis would not have achieved such prominence among the general public. I hope that the Government will respond to that accordingly.
	My fellow officers of the all-party group on rheumatoid arthritis and I had the opportunity to visit Guy's hospital and meet Dr. Kirkham and Professor Panayi, who have given great service to people who suffer from rheumatoid arthritis. We saw the hospital's excellent facilities from which rheumatoid arthritis sufferers could benefit. We also had the opportunity to visit Queen Mary's hospital in Sidcup, where we met Dr. Banerjee. He is a wonderful doctor who has given great care to his patients, but unfortunately for them, the hospital's facilities are in no way comparable to those at Guy's.
	The newly formed all-party group on rheumatoid arthritis, of which I am chairman, has worked closely with the NRAS since last October, with the specific aim of bringing the needs of rheumatoid arthritis patients and the resources required for rheumatology, as a specialist health area, to the Government's attention. Addressing the issues that relate directly to rheumatoid arthritis would benefit the wider patient community who suffer from osteoarthritis and other forms of arthritis, as well as people with musculo-skeletal conditions who are also treated by consultant rheumatologists and multidisciplinary teams that operate in the rheumatology field. I am pleased to say that a summary of the issues will be the subject of a NRAS consensus report that will be published at the end of the month. It will include contributions from patients, leading rheumatologists, primary care physicians and specialist rheumatology nurses from the Royal College of Nursing rheumatology nursing forum.
	I ask the Government to do whatever they can to give access to quality treatment. Early diagnosis and treatment is essential to minimise disease progression, joint damage and pain. The NRAS patient survey that was conducted earlier this year showed that it is unfortunately not uncommon for a patient to wait longer than a year to be referred into secondary care to see a specialist—of course, that is not acceptable. Early referral to a multidisciplinary team involving specialist nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and podiatrists is recommended for best care. There are simply not enough of those teams. The recommended provision for consultant rheumatologists is one per 85,000 people. Sadly, that is not met anywhere in the United Kingdom. The latest figures suggest that the speciality is more than 40 per cent. under strength, with an average of one consultant rheumatologist for every 150,000 people.
	I am also concerned about professional training and standards of care generally. Training in musculo-skeletal disease does not have sufficient priority in primary and secondary care. Current training is inadequate. There are also barriers to adequate rheumatoid arthritis services. The NHS has not paid enough attention to that over the decades. That is not in any sense a jibe at the Government. No Government have given it sufficient priority. The distortion of care in national priorities has to be addressed. It is no longer acceptable that guidelines have been produced for optimal care in Scotland and that a strategy for arthritis in Wales is being developed by the Welsh Assembly, but nothing has been developed in England. No doubt the Minister will tell me that that is on the agenda.
	There is no national service framework for rheumatoid arthritis, other forms of arthritis and musculo-skeletal conditions. There is only a brief mention of the disease in the new GP contract. There is no drive that I am aware of—again, the Minister may tell me otherwise—to improve the quality of services in general. Too few primary care organisations or health authorities have the background to commission relevant services.
	In March 2002, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence approved use of anti-TNF therapy for people with severe rheumatoid arthritis on whom existing treatments had failed. Since the debate was publicised, any number of organisations and interested parties have advised me on what I should raise, but I cannot cover all the issues in 15 minutes. More than 12 months on from NICE approving its use, the key finding is that postcode prescribing of anti-TNF therapy remains a significant problem in the UK.
	More than a third of the rheumatologists in the survey reported that they are still unable to prescribe anti-TNF therapy to every patient they identify in accordance with NICE guidance. In at least one area, the local primary care trust has decided not to commission any anti-TNF therapy on the ground of a major shortfall in cash. In the majority of cases in which rheumatologists could not prescribe anti-TNF therapy to all the patients they identified, insufficient funding was reported as the main barrier. That is obviously worrying. The survey took place between February and May 2003. Of 184 UK consultant rheumatologists surveyed, 152 participated, which is a pretty good response, representing 82.6 per cent. of respondents, the majority of whom were from England and Wales.
	I have three questions for the Minister. If he does not have time to reply, perhaps he could write to me. Does he agree that the loss of quality of life to rheumatoid arthritis patients, the burden of care put on families, which leads to a high level of separation and divorce, the loss of £833 million-worth of production to employers, the loss of revenue to the Government and the cost of benefits paid to disabled rheumatoid arthritis patients, is a serious issue and must be addressed?
	The main point is that I would like to know from the Government what importance and what priority they attach to treating inflammatory arthritis.
	The second point is whether the Minister agrees that general practitioners, primary care trusts and special health authorities will put their resources foremost into meeting Government targets and priorities, and that unless rheumatoid arthritis and arthritis generally are made higher priorities by the Government, rheumatoid arthritis patients will miss out.
	Finally, will the Minister welcome the work that is being done by patient groups and health professionals under the standards of care project that is currently under way, which is being co-ordinated and sponsored by the Arthritis and Musculo-skeletal Alliance? Perhaps the Minister might agree to an all-party meeting where we might have more time to go into greater depth on this important issue.

Andy King: I shall be extremely brief. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on achieving such a quick success in securing this debate. The all-party group feels strongly about the devastating impact that rheumatoid arthritis has on the individuals concerned and their families, young and old alike.
	At the heart of the debate, what surely is at issue is the way in which the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines are being interpreted and implemented by primary care trusts. I heard that one PCT had decided not to allow TNF therapy; my heart sank. I quickly checked to make sure that it was not the PCT in my area. I was greatly relieved to speak to Dr. Patricia Youett, of Rugby PCT, who informed me that it adheres extremely carefully to the guidelines that NICE has issued. It believes that that is the only way forward in ensuring fairness and equity to all patients wishing to receive health services.
	It is wrong that arthritis does not feature in the priorities of certain PCTs. That must be put right. It is timely for the Minister to take action to ensure that clear direction is given to PCTs throughout the country to ensure that they give due consideration to the guidelines issued by NICE and, more importantly, act upon them. We must put postcode prescribing into the dustbin of history once and for all.

Bob Spink: We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) about the seriousness of rheumatoid arthritis. He spoke with passion and power about an important subject that needs its profile raising.
	I pay tribute to rheumatologists throughout the country, and particularly at Guy's, which has a centre of excellence. I know that all rheumatologists are pretty good guys, but some of them do not have the facilities that are available at Guy's. We would like to see those facilities made available nationwide so that everyone can benefit from them. I speak as vice-chairman of the all-party group.
	The serious problem that is the focus of the debate is postcode prescribing for rheumatoid arthritis. It was covered by the "You and Yours" programme on Radio 4 on 14 July. It highlighted that two thirds of severe sufferers do not get the treatment that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines say should be made available to them. That means that 18,000 to 30,000 people with a severely crippling disease that can lead to high levels of mortality are being denied the treatment that they so desperately need. I ask the Minister, who I know is a good man and is listening carefully, to raise the profile of this disease. It does not have the appeal of strokes, heart attacks and cancer, but it is important. Secondly, will the Minister ensure that everyone who would benefit from anti-TNF treatments, which NICE says it should be mandatory to provide, can take advantage of them?

Stephen Ladyman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on winning this Adjournment debate and on taking up the chairmanship of the all-party group on rheumatoid arthritis. I very much welcome the creation of that group, and look forward to an early opportunity to meet its members. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) on being prepared to stay here today and participate in this debate. If their constituents are not familiar with the workings of the House, they may not realise that many of our colleagues started their summer holiday yesterday, and that we have given up a day of our recess to take part in this important debate.
	This debate gives me an opportunity to state the Government's position on both rheumatoid arthritis and the work and guidance of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. I emphasise that when NICE has issued guidance, we expect that guidance to be implemented everywhere. It is not optional—it is compulsory. We will be doing what is necessary to ensure that it is implemented everywhere. We established NICE for specific reasons, and we intend to make sure that its judgments are followed.
	I appreciate the efforts of the various voluntary agencies, including the excellent NRAS, which the hon. Member for Southend, West mentioned, many other voluntary organisations and the umbrella organisation, the Arthritis and Musculo-skeletal Alliance or ARMA. I welcome recent work highlighting disparities in treatment. I have seen the survey on the implementation of NICE guidance and the use of anti-TNF therapies. Frankly, it is disappointing that a number of primary care trusts still not have made those important drugs fully available, and we shall certainly follow that up.
	Members in the Chamber, but perhaps not other people who do not follow this issue closely, will know that tumour necrosis factor alpha has been found to be a key molecule in the cause of rheumatoid arthritis. Over-production of that molecule is one of the causes of the inflammatory processes that damage cartilage and bone. Anti-TNF therapies and other drugs inhibit that process. Arthritis can and does, as the hon. Member for Southend, West said, affect people of all ages, from young children to older people, but prevalence generally increases with age. It is estimated that about 70 per cent. of 70-year-olds suffer from some form of arthritis, mostly osteoarthritis. Arthritis means "inflammation of the joints", and it is the chief cause of physical disability in the United Kingdom. It encompasses more than 200 diseases affecting joints, the surrounding tissues and other connective tissues. Those diseases and conditions include osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia.
	We are aware that arthritis has a significant impact on health and community services. It affects the people who experience its painful symptoms and disability, their family members and care givers. It is extremely painful and involves serious loss of mobility in many cases. The severity and extent of the condition varies from individual to individual, but we are well aware of the costs to communities and society generally, which hon. Members have pointed out.
	NICE was set up as a special health authority for England and Wales on 1 April 1999. It is part of the national health service, and its role is to provide guidance on best practice. That guidance covers individual health technologies, including medicines, medical devices, diagnostic techniques, procedures and clinical management. NICE was asked to appraise the use of infliximab, also known as Remicade, and etanercept, also known as Enbrel, in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.
	NICE issued its guidance in March 2002. It recommended the use of etanercept for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis—JIA—and etanercept and infliximab for adult rheumatoid arthritis. Consultant rheumatologists, or consultant paediatric rheumatologists in the case of JIA, should prescribe these drugs, in accordance with the guidelines set out by the British Society for Rheumatology or the British Paediatric Rheumatology Group.
	Two registries have been set up by the BSR and the BPRG to monitor the dosage, effects and any side effects of these drugs. The NICE guidance recommends that doctors should send information to the appropriate registry regularly to help researchers to find out about the long-term effectiveness and side effects of treatment with both drugs.
	The NHS is receiving the largest sustained increase in funding in its history. We expect that increase in funding to be used to implement NICE guidance. Given that increase in funding, there is no excuse for primary care trusts not to follow the guidance. There is a statutory obligation on PCTs to make the treatments that NICE recommends available to patients.
	In December 2001, the Government announced that they would meet their commitment to ensuring that patients receive drugs and treatments recommended by NICE if that was deemed appropriate by their clinicians. Directions were issued obliging primary care trusts to provide appropriate funding for recommended treatments. There should not be any administrative or financial blocks preventing that. From 1 January 2002, the NHS has three months from the date of publication of each technology appraisal guidance to provide funding, so that clinical decisions made by doctors involving NICE-recommended treatments or drugs can be funded.
	When treating patients, clinicians have to make an independent clinical judgement that takes due account of NICE's advice and the strength of evidence that lies behind it. They may depart from the advice if, in their view, the circumstances of the individual patient justify doing so. But they will be held accountable through clinical governance arrangements for their clinical decisions. To assist them in this task, all technology appraisal guidance for treatments and drugs initiated after October 2000 includes specific audit advice and measurable criteria to be used in local reviews. A similar approach is being adopted for clinical guidelines.
	The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection—CHAI—will be the main inspector of NHS services in future. It will carry out inspection against clear national standards to be specified by the Secretary of State, and we expect NICE guidance to be included in those standards. It is worth reminding the House that NICE is proving to be effective, and at a national level there is evidence of increased prescribing of NICE-approved drugs. Indeed, the ARMA evidence appears to support that, as almost two thirds of the rheumatologists surveyed reported no problems. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth indicate that, in his area, NICE recommendations are being followed.
	Under the previous Government, postcode prescribing of expensive drugs like anti-TNF therapy for arthritis was widespread. Postcode prescribing is now rare and we need to make it even rarer. The manufacturers of the arthritis drugs that we are discussing estimate that around 9,000 patients already benefit from this therapy.
	Although we do not get involved in the day-to-day management of the NHS at local level, we will respond if we become aware of a specific instance where NICE guidance is not being implemented in the prescribing of infliximab. We have had reports from Nottingham, for example and we are investigating the concerns that have been raised. Responsibility for commissioning decisions across Nottingham lies with Nottingham commissioning forum, which co-ordinates decisions between PCTs and is advised by the major NHS trusts in the area. The forum has discussed implementation of NICE guidance, including the use of anti-TNF drugs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis on a number of occasions. The local strategic health authority and PCTs have undertaken to find out why problems have arisen.
	The ARMA report mentioned that, in some areas, a lack of nursing support was a barrier to patients' receiving anti-TNF therapy. There is an ongoing comprehensive programme of national and local action to recruit and retain nurses, midwives and health visitors. The commitment to 20,000 extra nurses in the NHS by 2004 contained in the NHS plan was met ahead of target in 2001. There were almost 50,000 more qualified nurses working in the NHS in England in April 2003 than in September 1997. The latest forecast is that 80,000 more nurses, midwives and health visitors will be working in the national health service as a whole by 2008, which highlights the importance of continuing efforts both to recruit and retain staff. That should help to overcome the nursing problems identified by ARMA in its report.
	Research will also be very important, but it is worth saying that the research effort is not confined to the United Kingdom Government. We sometimes receive requests for increases in research that seem to imply that that is the case or to forget that other countries are involved in research efforts. Furthermore, research is not always done by the Government; it is also done by voluntary organisations, charities and so on. The Arthritis Research Campaign, for example, aims to advance the understanding, prevention and treatment of arthritis and related conditions. It is the fourth largest medical research charity in the United Kingdom, with an annual income of £26 million. I should perhaps admit at this point that it employed me for six years.
	The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which also employed me for six years. The MRC is an independent body that receives its grant in aid from the Office of Science and Technology. The Department of Health funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the NHS. The MRC spent approximately £4.2 million on arthritis research in 2001–02. That figure includes work on the causes and treatment of arthritis, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and inflammation. It also includes work on musculoskeletal function, such as ankylosing spondylitis, on connective tissue disorders, such as Sjogrens syndrome and lupus, and on pain. Work being carried out at the MRC National Institute for Medical Research may contribute to the development of new drugs to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases.
	The Department of Health has funded several research projects on rheumatoid arthritis via its national health service research and development programmes. They include a randomised controlled trial of different knee prostheses at the university of Dundee that is due for completion in 2010 and "Are topical or oral Ibuprofen equally effective for the treatment of chronic knee pain in older people?", a study that is due to end in December 2005. The Department also provides NHS support funding for research commissioned by the research councils and charities that takes place in the NHS. Details of Department of Health-funded research and other projects that are completed and under way in the NHS can be found on the national research register.
	Priorities for health and social care are set out in "Improvement, Expansion and Reform", the priorities and planning framework for 2003 to 2006. Although arthritis is not identified specifically, people with the condition stand to benefit from the improvement in access to specialist care for patients suffering from any form of orthopaedic condition. I have heard what hon. Members have said about the possible need for arthritis to be specifically recognised and I certainly undertake to reflect on that advice.
	Maximum waiting times have fallen over the past few years and will continue to do so. By the end of 2005, the maximum waiting time for a first out-patient appointment with a consultant will fall to three months and the maximum wait for in-patient treatment will fall to six months. That is important for patients requiring anti-TNF therapy as the drugs have to be prescribed by a consultant. Also, the older people's national service framework set standards that will improve treatment and care for a range of older people, including those with arthritis.
	It is important for me to say that primary care trusts have responsibility for ensuring that local issues are carefully considered in their plans, but I stress once again that NICE guidance has to be followed. I shall certainly ensure that they are aware of their obligation in that regard.
	On any issues that I have not had time to deal with, I shall write to the hon. Members who have taken part in this debate. I give the House this assurance: the Government take arthritis and rheumatism extremely seriously and we will be doing everything that we can to ensure that there is no postcode prescribing, that treatments are available everywhere and that care is to the highest possible standard—
	The motion having been made after Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at twenty-six minutes to Seven o'clock.